he 
ox 


δ Ὁ Πὰν τ τ τ χον. ΡΝ Oe ae τσ ὧς 
᾿ Sie STAN vee ὃν ἐς δονω στ οὶ 
Nie . PA SS ANSSGNS σὰ Sey theses Sa : 
: = ea eet: a τὰ 
τὰ ; ; 


ἈΝ 


=) 


AY aN as 
> ᾿ 


whe \Y : & ὃς 
; PARAS SNE SANT PEND RNS Meee : 
Nits Sk 1 ΔΑΝ δ ASS ζ ἃ Στὸ as AN ae ANS eK ἧς 
wis) ‘ uh Ἂν Ἶ δ δι . ἐν Se 
aS wy τ Ἶ ρος δ 
χω 
δ sot ci ‘ 
We SAN ay wwe a \ . ἃ ν Se : ; : Ν᾽ 
‘ Ἀδὰ ν ς : ν atte Behe Loe? 
ὶ ἊΝ Ἷ ν aN ς ἵ ee hes ask! “ete, teh oh 
ς τοῖν 


MAAS 
ἘΣ 


x 
e 


ἃ Ata 2h AY 
: ἈΝ ἀκ ουνὴ ζνόλχνς 
RRR a | 
δὲ TRE : ey A : . : tek SS 
WER AS SRS : ς SENS : : ΙΝ 
Ny ἣν Χ tae } a ae Ste Sars S bs : oS : Shen 
: ἶ ἢ wa ¥ Se x Ser aN Se yoke tne 


OS 5 

Ὧ Νὰ A : ὟΝ : : CL Ὁ . : δ 
Νὰ ὶ SN AS TN SS wh So tee 
wi : SS ; . 
(eeceimaeoece 


“es 


τ 


ὯΝ 


Δ 


ΝΣ 


τὴν 


ἣν 





SS 
Ν As 
ἢ ESS Ὁ 
Ne : SA ~ \ πὰ 
τὸ ὰ SANENS aS See 
ΝΣ WSN λὰ SEN ST ik) Ν᾿ ~ : 5 here : "ΕΣ τ Swat yoy 
ἐξ γος ἥ ῸΝ ε OM MARS NA \ 3 ' Ἂς ὧν L235 Liem 
δ ΔῊ \ Seth δὲ ἰὸς LAY Ta Tk aa x τυ το συν τον hes ae 
. δὰν yy a aN) AX . ENA AS ; SAS . cbt ἧς ness 
δ SES ‘ ἊΝ ANY > PAN τὸς Rass rks : ts 
WIS AO: KS ES ; ARAN ES x i. ; ek 
SARTORI WSs | SS 
he ws ἧ : SR . ἀφ 
hy . ἐν SS ; i, : ς ee 
SS Th Yo . ᾿ 2 , AAS . 
δ . x Web shes Se ~ - ᾿ς ; ’ : 
oxy) SAN oN oY SY ὡς τέλος ἈΝ τς 5 SS iy . Ν ὌΝ . = 
. Ws ayy: AVKY τὶ x SRE eT DR δι ae ic vii ᾿ ae 2 oes 
SAA SENSE SEEN EEE RE Se SSN 
: ς . . τὰ : ary ὃς : : : SS 7 one 
Ν Ἂς ὶ FENN RN eS poet eres 
‘ rete ’ wee τὴ 4 a m Sa Sere = 
RN RE ES . ΕΣ 
. anata . : = nee λας τ 
< Ὁ : ‘7 avin ~ : 
Sa See 
ὃ ς ΔΝ : Sos Seeaeratecs 
\ SASSY ς : ἊΣ ᾿ ae - 
TEAS = ELSE ie ak 
ν SRS aN Rass ates 
rat Ss ΝΣ N AN : Slots - ἮΝ 
: Seeks WINES ἜΝ 
ry Steet cae ete xo 
K SA aR AS oe 
aX a xt) SS sors eh Rey ve 
aye SEs cawe ts SS 
Sy Se : . 
EN SESS 


oa 
se 


~*~ 
ΤΩ ; 
δὶ ‘ i. τ 
δὴ TANS : : : hes AWAD 
ὃ : * PATE SS 
\ 4 | 


RAINS a ὃν 


Ate 


4 





SSE 
as aS 


Se 
iS 


* 











baw Sa 
Sk ac 
TERS 
S45 rth ‘ 
WANES : SEAS 
haa ecewenks 


ee SC 


oe) 


SN 


Ὁ 
Ἂν 


ΔῚΣ 





᾿ χὰ 
ἘΝ ΤᾺ Ἀνὰ ἘΝ 
AAAS 


AN 





ἘΞ 
Ο 
τ 
Ξ 
Θ 


ΔΑ ΝΆ A OA 








δῆς ἣν 


΄ 


“ae ῃ 





£ 


τ Rr 
Ἁ «τῇ Ἢ ἘΣ 








A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 





GRAMMAR 


OF THE 


‘NEW TEST GREEK. 
Ae : 


ῳ ALEXANDER BUTTMANN. 





> 9 » 
99923 


AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION, 
WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS BY THE AUTHOR. 





Andover: 
WARREN F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER. 


MAIN STREET. 


1891. 


#E SERVATION 
OPY ADDED 
Y 


Entered according to Act of Yongress, in the year 1878, by 
WARREN * DRAPER, 
in the Office of the Librarian uf Congress at Washington. 





ANDOVER: PRINTED BY WARREN F. DRAPER. 





TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 





Ir is to be hoped that the reproduction of the following work in 
English will not be regarded as a superfluous labor. The day has gone 
by, indeed, when the extravagant maxim could find acceptance, “The 
better grammarian, the worse logician and theologian ;” but the some- 
what indiscriminate depreciation of the study of the dead languages at 
the present day is not without injurious influence upon those who are 
preparing themselves to be expounders of the Divine Word. Even in 
that land which is reputed to be the home of philological studies, the 
prince of New Testament expositors has recently said: “ We theo- 
logians are still far too deficient in a comprehensive and positive 
knowledge of Greek Grammar.”' The sense of such a deficiency 
which the general progress of linguistic science must sooner or later 
awaken, and especially the recognition (which the growing tendency to 
break away from traditional opinions will force upon theologians) 
of the need of taking a new inventory of the biblical data, as preliminary 
to a revision of the scientific statements of the Christian faith, will 
eventually secure a welcome for works like the present. 

Its author is the youngest son of the late Philip Buttmann, whose 
Grammars, which have been in use now for more than eighty years, 
have rendered the name familiar wherever Greek is studied. After 
completing his training at the universities of Berlin and Bonn, he 
became, in 1837, a teacher in the gymnasium at Potsdam, where, by 
successive promotions, he attained, in 1854, to the rank of Professor. 
But in the same year he resigned his office, in order to secure the 
leisure needed for his literary labors; and he has lived since in retire- 
ment, except that he has held the position of “ Schulrath,” to which the 
city appointed him in 1864. 

Intrusted by the other members of the family with the care of his 
father’s grammatical works, he has edited at least eight editions of the 
so-called Intermediate Grammar (which in its eighteenth edition was 
translated into English by the late Dr. Edward Robinson), and seven 


1 Meyer’s Commentary on the Ep. to the Romans (5th ed.). Pref. p. vii note. 
: v 


Vi242202 


= TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


editions of the School Grammar. Under his hand these works have 
undergone essential changes, especially in the syntax, and have been so 
judiciously adapted to the steady progress in grammatical science, as 
still (forty-four years after the death of their author) to be able to 
maintain themselves in many German schools and universities against 
the competition of recent Grammars, like those of Curtius and 
Kriiger. 

Besides many essays upon grammatical, critical, and exegetical topics, 
which Professor Buttmann has prepared from time to time for the 
Studien und Kritiken, and other periodicals, he published, in 1856, ἃ 
book on “ German Names of Places.” But his chief work, and that 
especially for the preparation of which he withdrew from the labor of 
teaching, is his N.T. Grammar. This is confessedly the most important 
treatise on the subject which has appeared since Winer’s. ‘The author 
makes generous acknowledgments of indebtedness to Winer; but a 
slight examination of the book will convince the reader that it has a 
valid claim to be regarded as an original work. In fact, the general 
attitude and drift of the two writers differ perceptibly. While Winer 
— owing, doubtless, to the lax views respecting the N. T. language 
which prevailed when he began to write— seems loath to recognize 
incipient departures from classic usage, Prof. Buttmann, on the other 
hand, is quick to concede and to trace out the general tendency of the 
language to degenerate from the classic standard, is inclined to give 
greater prominence than Winer to the influence of the Septuagint, and 
even to deteet traces of the Latin in the syntax of the N. T. Hence 
it comes to pass that respecting several details, such as the unemphatic 
use of αὐτός in the Nom. (p. 107), the use of periphrases for the Geni- 
_tive (p. 156), of the Indic. Pres. for the Subjune. in deliberative 
questions (p. 208 sq.), ete., his views vary materially from those of his 
predecessor. On other and broader topics, too, such as the use of the 
Art. (cf. pp. 90, 93), the apparently indiscriminate employment of Aor. 
and Perf. (p. 197), the so-called Gnomic Aor. (pp. 201 sqq.), the use 
᾿ς and force of the particle ἵνα (pp. 235 sqq.) and of the Infin. with rod 
(pp. 266 sqq.), bis clear and thorough discussions will be read with 
interest; while his full exhibition of grammatical forms,' especially those 
of the verb, will prove to be specially helpful. And as his discussion of 
the principles of the N. T. language, both supplementing and qualifying, 
as it does, the views of Winer, will interest the student of grammar; 
. 80. his extended application of these principles in elucidating obscure 


1 Cf. Tischendorf’s commendatory rematk in his N.T. ed. Sept. Crit. Maj 
Prolegg. p. Ix. 


TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. Vii 


passages will: be welcomed by those who care for little more than the 
results of exegesis. 

The form which the author thought best to give his treatise, viz. that 
of an Appendix to Ph. Buttmann’s Griechische Grammatik (the work 
which Dr. Robinson translated), has doubtless retarded its circulation.’ 
By adopting that form, he was enabled, while devoting, at the most, 
but a passing remark to those points which the language of the N. T. 
has in common with classic Greek, to exhibit what is peculiar to the 
N. T. in a more sharp and consecutive treatment than would have been 
possible otherwise. But the scientifie precision of the plan is counter- 
balanced, in the result, by the practical inconveniences to which those 
students are subjected who are not familiar with the grammatical 
method of Buttmann. It seemed desirable to the translator, therefore, 
while, on the one hand, retaining as far as possible the author’s exclusive 
treatment of his department, on the other hand, to adapt the work to 
the easy use of students drilled in other grammatical text-books. In 
order to accomplish this twofold object, I have introduced into the trans- 
lation so much only from Buttmann’s classical Grammar as was neces- 
sary, in every case, to render the matter under discussion intelligible to 
the student without recourse to that work; and, on the other hand, I 
have added to the references to that Grammar (which is designated by 
the letter B.) running references to the other classical Grammars most 
in use in this country and in Great Britain, viz. to those of Hadley, 
Crosby, Donaldson, Jelf. These Grammars, as well as Buttmann’s, 
are referred to by sections,? and designated respectively by the initials 
B,C, D.,. J. 

Owing to diversity in the arrangement and treatment of topics, these 
references will not be found to be all equally pertinent. But in making 
them I have been governed by the conviction that a reference to a 
familiar work, and one at hand, is more serviceable, especially to a be- 
ginner, than a reference, though better in itself, to a work less accessible 
or less easily understood. 

In addition to the Grammars already named, references have been 
given to Prof. Goodwin’s Syntax of Moods and Tenses, to Winer’s 


1 Since the arrangements for this translation were completed with Prof. Butt- 
mann and his publisher, large use of the original has been made in the notes of 
Prof. Moulton’s excellent translation of the Sixth edition of Winer’s N. T. Gram- 
mar. But it is believed that those who obtain their knowledge of it through that 
medium can hardly fail to desire to possess the entire work in English. 

2 Occasionally it has been convenient to refer to Buttmann’s Classical Grammar 
by pages. In that case the page given is that of Dr. Robinson’s translation of the 
eighteenth German edition, published in 1851, by Harper and Brothers, N. Y. 


viii TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


N. T. Grammar, and occasionally to Prof. Short’s Essay on the Order 
of Words in Attic Greek Prose.! These works are represented by G., 
W., and S. respectively. The references to Winer are to the pages of 
the authorized translation of the Seventh German edition, and are fol- 
lowed in each case by the number of the corresponding page in the 
original, inclosed within a parenthesis. The references to the “ Lehrge- 
biiude” of Gesenius have been supplemented, so far as possible, by 
references to the corresponding matter in his Hebrew Grammar. The 
general references to Pape and to Wahl have, for the most part, been 
retained. But the sixth edition of Liddell and Scott will ordinarily 
serve the student quite as well as the former; and the revised edition 
of Dr. Robinson’s N. T. Lexicon, or, still better, Prof. Grimm’s edition 
of Wilke’s Clavis? may be substituted for the latter. 

The matter incorporated from Buttmann’s classical Grammar, and 
the references to the other grammatical works above mentioned, are 
generally introduced without any distinctive mark; but all other addi- 
tions made by me are carefully distinguished from the original by square 
brackets. 

With the exception of the slight modification of the plan of the work 
which has been already described, and the omission of a paragraph from 
the author’s Preface which this modification rendered irrelevant, the 
translation reproduces the original in full and without change. But 
Prof. Buttmann has very kindly furnished me with two hundred and 
sixty-one manuscript additions and corrections for this edition — many 
of them of considerable length and much importance. In weaving 
them into the text, I have taken pains not to obscure the author’s change 
of opinion, when any has occurred. 


The Greek text of the N. T. generally adopted by the author is that 
of Lachmann’s larger edition; see the remarks on this subject at the 
close of the Introduction, p. 4. In the same place, the reader will 
discover that the printing of this book was begun nearly two years ago. 
But the delay is the less regretted, because in the interim the eighth 
edition of Tischendorf’s text and the Greek Testament of Tregelles 
have both been completed, so that in passages where allusion is made 
1 Prefixed to Dr. Drisler’s edition of Yonge’s English-Greek Lexicon. N. Y. 
Harper and Brothers. 1870. 

2 The translation of Prof. Grimm’s Lexicon which was promised in the Bib- 
liotheca Sacra for October, 1864, has been lying in manuscript now for many 
months. The protracted work of verifying the references is drawing towards a 
close, and the book will be published as soon as leisure can be found for the edi 
torial labor requisite to adapt it to the needs of English-speaking students. 


TRANSLA‘IOR’S PREFACE. ix 


to variation in the text, the reading adopted by both these editors has 
been indicated. To accomplish this at the least expense of alteration 
in the plates, the ordinary abbreviations Tdf. and Treg. have occasion- 
ally been superseded by the simple T. and Tr. respectively. For the 
same reason the codex Sinaiticus has been referred to by cod. Sin., Sin., 
and & indifferently. 

The Biblical references have all been carefully verified. The N. T. 
Index has been enlarged so as to include all the passages from the 
N. T. referred to in the Grammar; and a separate index has been 
added, comprising the passages cited from the Septuagint. For the 
labor which these improvements involved, as well as for valuable 
assistance in correcting the press, my grateful acknowledgments are 
due to my friend Rev. Geo. B. Jewett, D.D. 

The other indexes have been materially augmented; the cross- 
references have been multiplied; chapter and verse added to many of 
the fragmentary quotations from the N. T.; the pagination of the 
German original has been given in the margin; and at the end of the 
book a Glossary of technical terms encountered more or less frequently 
in commentaries and grammatical works has been added for the con- 
venience of students. 

Finally, I would reiterate the closing words of the author’s Preface, 
in reliance upon the promise made to those who shall agree as touching 
what they ask. 


J. H. THAYER. 


THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ANDOVER, Mass. 
August, 18738. 


PREFACE. 





As long ago as the appearance of the nineteenth edition of my 
father's Greek Grammar, I designed to give, as an Appendix for the 
practical purposes of schools, a summary of the grammatical usage οὗ. 
the N. T. in so far as it differs from ordinary usage, in order subse- 
quently to follow it with a copious and scientific exposition of the 
entire department. To this twofold undertaking I was led by the per- 
suasion that Winer’s Grammar is, on the one hand, too comprehensive 
and learned for school use; and that on the other hand, for those who 
have been taught according to the plan of Buttmann’s Grammar, it pre- 
pares manifold difficulties by its arrangement and whole method of 
treatment, and requires for its correct understanding almost an inde- 
pendent training of its own. But my work also grew under my hands. 
The further I entered upon my theme, the more I perceived that such 
a summary as I had originally designed could only get a sure founda- 
tion and make claim to scientific worth in case the entire department 
had previously been explored as far as possible in all directions, and 
received a sustained exposition; and that, at any rate, it is a more 
correct and safe procedure to let a practical outline follow a larger work, 
executed on scientific principles, than the reverse. ‘Thus arose this 
Grammar. That I venture to present it to the learned public in face 
of the many and undisputed excellences of Winer’s, does not arise from 
the mistaken and self-complacent opinion that the work of my respected 
predecessor ought to be supplanted by a new one. On the contrary, it 
is my firm persuasion that Winer’s work will long continue to maintain 
its honorable position in philological as well as theological science; and 
it is my highest wish that my work may only succeed in winning for 
itself a modest place in this departmeut of literature behind, or by the 
side of, its predecessor and master. 

Winer’s Grammar originated at a time when modern philological 
criticism, especially as applied by Lachmann and Tischendorf, had not 
yet given to the text of the N. T. that form which it now has in most 


of the editions used in schools and universities. It is true, the recent 
x 


PREFACE. τ 


revisions of the text remained by no means unnoticed by Winer. 
On the contrary, the indefatigable labors of the man in this particular 
are shown by the circumstance that almost every new edition of his 
Grammar underwent the most important and radical alterations, in order 
to conform it to the stage of criticism at the time. But the work as a 
whole acquired by these frequent changes a somewhat ragged look, and 
a form often extremely inconvenient for practical use, especially for 
citation. Since, too, hardly any performance within his department 
escaped the notice of this thorough investigator, inasmuch as he took 
notice of all publications in any way relating to it, — as well those of spe- 
cifically theological science as of philological, both oriental and classical, — 
and wrought the acquired results into his work, he imparted to it by 
degrees such a character that it may be regarded almost as a grammati- 
cally arranged Commentary onthe N. T.; acommentary which, by its 
copious wealth and its searching treatment of many particular passages, 
is, and will remain, indispensable to every member of the theological 
profession. But on the other hand it is not to be denied, that by the 
accumulation (often unlimited) of learned material the clear grammati- 
cal outlook was frequently cut off. Furthermore, as the work did not 
adopt any given system of classical Greek grammar, but traversed anew, 
in the syntax at least, the entire realm of grammatical phenomena, 
much was of necessity given which strictly belonged to the general 
grammar, or at least might have been assumed as sufficiently well-known 
already. The inevitable consequence of this was, that for an unprac- 
tised eye what is distinctive and peculiar in N. T. usage is not discrimi- 
nated sharply enough from what, as being common property to all who 
spoke and wrote Greek, pertains to Greek grammar in general. 
Taking, then, the critical investigations of the recent editors as my 
basis, and adopting the philological views which underlie Buttmann’s 
Greek Grammar, particularly the nineteenth and following editions 
edited by me, I have given my N. T. Grammar the form of an Appendix 
to that work. In this way the first part of my book, which relates to 
Forms and Inflection, has acquired, it must be confessed, a somewhat 
fragmentary aspect, as the honored reviewer in Zarncke’s literary 
“Centralblatt” correctly remarks. Since, however, the deviations, in. 
the matter of Forms, of the language of the N. T. writers, (with the 
exception, perhaps, of the text of the Apocalypse as established by 
modern criticism) from the current literary language, especially the 
then prevalent κοινή, so-called, are by no means very important, a 
work undertaking to bring out only what is distinctive in the N. T. 
language cannot assume any other shape ; — just as the same description 


ait PREFACE. 


holds true of that portion of Winer’s Grammar also which treats of 
Forms. 

As respects Syntax the case is different. Here what is characteristic 
and peculiar is incomparably more marked, in consequence of the nature 
of the contents of the N. T. books on the one hand, and of many foreign 
influences on the other. That the mental impulse given by the new doc- 
trine must produce a noticeable effect upon language, does not need to 
be shown at length. Of the foreign influences which impart to the 
Greek of the N. T. that complexion which distinguishes it so noticeably 
from the classic tongue, there are in particular four: First, the influence 
of the linguistic spirit of the Orient, especially of the O. T. Hebrew 
and of the Aramaic of the Palestinian Jews of that day (Hebraisms) ; 
Secondly (and closely connected with this), the influence of the Greek 
translation of the Bible by the Seventy interpreters, generally diffused 
as it was among the Jews of that region and so much in use (the Sep- 
tuagint) ; Thirdly, the influence coming from the popular language 
prevalent in all portions of the Greek world of that day, as distinguished 
from the literary diction of the repositories of classic Greek literature 
and culture (the Common or Colloquial language) ; Fourthly, the in- 
fluence of the Latin language upon the later Greek or so-called κοινή 
(Latinisms). 

* * * * * * 

A complete exhibition of the linguistic peculiarities of the N. T. 
would comprise a discrimination between the styles peculiar to the 
different N.T. authors. For it is not to be overlooked, that (leaving the 
Apocalypse aside) there exists a difference not only between the historic 
writings and the epistolary, but also within these main divisions, between 
the synoptists and John; between the Pauline and the Catholic epistles ; 
between individual Evangelists; in fact, between the several writings 
of one and the same author ; — an assertion whieh is true, for example, 
of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. A detailed exposition of 
these differences, however, would carry us quite too far, and lies beyond 
the limits of this Grammar, which is primarily concerned only with 
grouping as far as possible all characteristics together, and so taking a 
combined view of the N. T. diction and style. The compass of the 
several writings, also, is too small to afford a basis for separate exposi- 
tions of the various peculiarities in language; and an author must be 
satisfied to treat this subject in a fragmentary way as opportunity offers. 
Moreover, a minute elaboration of this topic falls rather to the depart- 
ment of N. T. stylistics, or of exegesis, whose business it is to examine 
and elucidate the individual writings on all sides. The reader, there- 


PREFACE. χε 


fore, may be the more readily referred to these exegetical works, as 
more thorough treatment and careful investigation have already been 
bestowed upon the subject by the recent commentators ;' and in conse- 
quence of the critical renovation of the text will continue to be given 
it in the future. Whatever grammatical results, however, could already 
be mentioned, I have carefully endeavored to note: by speaking of 
them in their place as special peculiarities, and by giving as complete a 
list of them as possible in the Index under the head of the respective 
N. T. authors. The same has been done in reference to the four aspects 
of the language previously mentioned, with regard to which the Index 
may be consulted under the topics, Hebraisms, Septuagint, Language 
(popular and later Greek), Latinisms. 

On two other points it seems to me necessary to say a word in this 
place, viz. the proper attitude and relations of New Testament Grammar 
to Exegesis and to Lexicography. The contents of the N. T., especially 
of the Epistles, are so exceptional both as respects difficulty and impor- 
tance, and the compass of the several books is so small, that in the 
domain of interpretation the most diverse results could not fail to be 
brought to light. -Evidence of this is afforded by the extremely numer- 
ous and voluminous exegetical writings, the like of which in amount can 
probably be shown by no literary productions of ancient or modern 
times. Owing to the variety of religious parties and theological sects, 
which from the first centuries down have been so numerous and change- 
ful, as well as in consequence of the restricted views or one-sided parti- 
zanship of individuals, the diversity of exegetical principles is very 
considerable ; — in fact there are for many passages almost as many 
different interpretations as interpreters (see ex. gr. Winer on Gall. iii. 
20). And to what assaults from the same quarter and for the same 
reasons the sacred text itself has been exposed from the very earliest 
times, the collection of various readings affords many a striking proof ; 
(see ex. gr. 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 John v. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 51,ete.). Nowhere, 
however, do the opinions of interpreters diverge more widely than where 
a knowledge of grammatical principles was wanting, and consequently 
the caprice of the private understanding had free course, so that often 
N. T. Grammar was made responsible for the strangest hypotheses and 
chimeras. Although the knowledge of grammar is not the only, still 


1 Among many others I may mention the commentaries of Bleek on the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, of Liicke and Tholuck on John, of Fritzsche on the first two 
Gospels, of the same author and of Riickert and Reiche on the Epistles to the 
Romans and the Corinthians, of de Wette and Meyer on all the books of the N. T 
the numerous N. T. Introductions, ete. 


XiV PREFACE. f 


it is the primary and the main, foundation of interpretation; at any 
rate, it is a check to subjective caprice and inordinate excesses. With- 
out this foundation there can be no talk about certainty in explaining 
the Scriptures; for we possess no inspired interpretation. Linguistic 
products, even the most sacred, are like all others, subject to the restraint 
of linguistic laws, which, be they ever so special, are nevertheless Laws, 
which every author spontaneously and unconsciously obeys. To establish 
such definite linguistic laws, together with the just as definitely-limited 
exceptions (so far forth as the latter either rest upon analogies in ordi- 
nary usage, or at least group themselves together under a distinctly 
traceable special analogy), and to combine all these phenomena into 
one systematic whole, is the business of a special grammar. 

Many passages of Scripture, however, are of such a kind that, owing 
to the limited extent of the several books, they are destitute of any 
other analogy. ‘These, to be sure, must then be explained from them- 
selves, from the context and the tenor of Scripture, or by the aid of 
ancient tradition (which must have for us the greater authority the 
nearer it stands to the time of composition of the Scriptures), in a word, 
historically rather than grammatically. Such cases must be left prin- 
cipally to Exegesis. If Grammar notices them, it does so rather inci- 
dentally, and for the sake of completeness; their value to Grammar 
can only be determined by their relation to analogies already estab- 
lished. For she can adopt,and work up as solid portions of the system 
she would found, only those results of Hermeneutics which rest upon 
analogies, if she will not run the risk of being compelled to pull to 
pieces to-morrow what she to-day perhaps has laboriously built up, and 
to cast away as useless material what she has over-hastily made the 
corner pillar of her structure. On the other hand, it would be just as 
erroneous, if she in haughty self-sufficiency should wish utterly to 
seclude herself from the results of Hermeneutics. Both sciences must 
continually go hand in hand. As Hermeneutics has in Grammar her 
constant monitor and the touchstone of her results, so Grammar receives 
from the discreet critico-historical inquiry of Exegesis perpetually new 
enrichment. It is an unscientific, irrational demand,— and one which 
misjudges man’s powers, — that the one science should not begin to act 
till after the other has finished its work ; since, on the contrary, they 
are both at the same time called and commissioned for the understanding 
of the Scriptures. By progressive discernment, with the help of Gram 
mar and under the guidance of critico-historical research, continually to 
diminish the number of passages which refuse to submit to any linguis- 
tic analogy (and consequently as to whose meaning commentators 


PREFACE. oy 


generally diverge in all directions) is one of the leading and abiding 
aims of Hermeneutics. | 

Further: it is difficult to draw a sharp boundary line between Lexi- 
cography and the explanation of words (Semasiology) on the one hand, 
and Grammar on the other; since both departments often encroach 
upon each other, and stand in relations of reciprocity. Indeed, from a 
scientific point of view every syntactic phenomenon connected with a 
word ought to be included in syntax, of whatever nature that phenome- 
non may be: for example, the different significations of a word so far 
forth as they proceed from a difference of construction, or on the other 
hand occasion a different construction. Buta particular grammar, like © 
that of the N. T., always subserves, in the main, practical necessities ; 
and it would be obliged to extend its limits far too wide, if in the respect 
under consideration it would attain to merely relative completeness even. 
Here also, therefore, a separation must take place between what can 
be traced back to definite laws and perceptible analogies, and what as 
an isolated peculiarity can be conveniently left to the dictionaries. It 
is true, the general lexicons in common use in the schools, as they are 
all based on classical usage, are not sufficient in many cases for the 
understanding of the N. T. (compare ex. gr. the words πιστεύειν, ἐλπί- 
ew, ὁμολογεῖν ; the prepositions ἐν, εἰς, ἀπό, etc.) ; and accordingly, a 
great number of special dictionaries have been prepared by scholars, 
among which may be named those of Schéttgen, Schleusner, Wahl, 
Bretschneider, Wilke, Schirlitz, etc. Grammar, however, obliged as 
it is continually to impose upon itself firm restrictions, cannot possibly 
include all that is lexically important — unless the fulness of details is 
to destroy the evident perspicuity of the whole, but must regard its task 
as completely performed when all the combinations and constructions 
occurring in the N. T., especially those relating to cases and verbs, are 
linguistically accounted for. The possession of a special dictionary, 
therefore, will always be requisite to theologians and every one who 
desires to investigate the N. T. writings minutely. 

These are the principles and the most important aims which have 
guided me in the composition of this work. Whether I have a right to 
appear before the literary public with a book which originated in this 
way and has been wrought out according to these’principles, those must 
judge who join to linguistic knowledge an unprejudiced view of the 
great difficulties to be overcome. Whether I hereafter venture to make 
an abridgment of this work for the use of schools, will depend upon 
the invitation especially of those gentlemen who have charge of religious 
instruction in the Gymnasia. 


xvi PREFACE. 


In conclusion, let me be permitted, with allusion to the closing words 
of Winer’s Preface to the last [i.e. the 6th] edition of his Grammar, to 
utter the deep-felt desire, that under God’s assistance it may be reserved 
for this book also (in fellowship with the work of my honored pre- 
decessor, to which it owes very much, indeed the greatest part, of its 
value) to further the knowledge of Biblical truth so far as any such 
work can. 


Porspam, Nov. 1858. 


CONTENTS 





PART FIRST: FORMS. 


Introduction, Ξ : : : ‘ j 
Orthography, Orthoepy, Euphony, etc, . 2.9 » «© «+ «6 s. 8 
Declension: The Dual, Ν i ‘ A ε é é : i Be ΤΊ 
First Declension, . ; : ; ; 5 ; : ; ; ‘ eae | 
Second Declension, . ° ‘ ; : : ‘ : ; ; ΞΟ Ὁ. 
Third Declension, ‘ ; ‘ : F ὰ . Tes : 718 


Declension of Foreign Proper Names, ὶ : ° ‘ ; ἢ ἘΣ ἘΝ 
Anomalous Declension, : . SG : i ὰ ; F on $3 
Uomparison, : , - : : : : ‘ . , : eB 
Numerals, . : “ 7 ; ‘ ὃ Σ , ν᾿ " ov 98 
Pronouns, . ἢ : 5 : Α > ᾿ : 81 


The Verb, . - : Σ ‘ : ἃ ὶ ὁ ᾿ . ἔν 85 
Syllabic Augment, ‘ ἱ 3 : : ὃ ᾿ : : - $2 
Temporal Augment, . ‘ , ‘ ὁ . ὁ ° ᾿ ἀν 88 
The Augment in Composition, . : ὃ ; ° , 3 J 90 
Future Subjunctive, . Σ : : ‘ ; : ‘ ‘ » $5 
Circumflexed Future, . ν ; ; ; ᾿ F ὲ : oy OF 
Alexandrian Aorist, . , f : ‘ J ἢ = ἃ . 89 
Verbs in A, μὲν, 8... ; ‘ 2 - ἷ ὃ ᾧ ‘ “st 
Verbals in τος, . < : ; ‘ ; é ‘ . ὲ ἐξ» 4] 
Barytone and Contract Verbs, . ‘ ° é ‘ ‘ , τ 45 
Verbs in pt, . ‘ ‘ Ξ ὃ ‘ . ‘ . ὃ ἐ . 44 
Deponents Passive, ‘ ‘ . . ὃ . . ᾿ . ἜΤ 
List of Anomalous Verbs, . Ἶ 5 . ᾿ risk A a SS 

Adverbs, ξ . ‘ ἢ . ° Ἶ ὃ ὦ - aes 

Particles of Place, ὃ . ‘ 6 ὼ ° ᾿ 2 ὃ ὀ oe 20 

Changes of Form in Particles, . . ‘ Fe Ξ : : - 42 

Formation of Words, . : ° ithe ὁ ° . . ° ae 


“viii CONTENTS. 


PART SECOND: SYNTAX. 


PAGE 
Introduction, . ; : : 5 : - ἃ - ὃ : ν᾿ 
Substantives and Adjectives, : ; : 2 : ‘ - ae 


Apposition, . ‘ : - : . : ς ° » ΠΟΥ δ 
Constr. ad ϑ'υποβδῖὶη,  . : : ᾿ ; : Ἴ . ; 1 8 
Omission of the Substantive, seme ; ᾿ : ᾿ 5 > ee 
Adjectives used for Adverbs, : : : : ° . Ἶ . 82 


Comparative and Superlative, . ; Ν - ; ὶ ; . 83 
the Article, fee ‘ : : , Ζ ; ‘ 3 : . > oe 
The Definite Article, . : : - : , ‘ Ξ ; » 286 
Omission of the Article, - ὃ ; ; : ὁ ; . 88 


Use of the Article with more closely defined Substantives, : ee 
The Article with a Substantive to be supplied, . : . . - 94 


The Article before entire Sentences oe 
The Article with several connected Substantives, ; ὃ : a “8 
The Article as a Demonstrative, . - ; ‘ : Ξ : . 101 
bronouns, . ‘ : , A y ; ; : 3 "| ; . 108 
οὗτος and ὅδε, ἐκεῖνος, : Ξ Ἶ ‘ ; ᾿ 5 - 103 
Constr. ad Synesin with Demonstratives, . 105 
Use ot αὐτός, ‘ . ᾿ . TR 
The Reflexive Pronoun, : : : ὃ Ξ Ξ 5 ὲ . 110 
τὶς, τίς, ὅστις, ὲ ie : ; ; : > ᾿ >. ee 
Possessives, and the use of the Personals and of ἴϑιος for the same . 115 
Pronouns with the Article, . ; ‘ ΐ ‘ ‘ ov ee 
Periphrastic Forms of the Negative Pronouns, . ς é . * 231 
Neuter Adjectives, ‘ ‘ : ; ‘ , = . : . . 122 
Subject and Predicate, ‘ ‘ ; : ‘ : 3 ᾿ . 123 


Their Agreement in Number and Gender, . ; . . 125 


Constr. ad Synesin in the Predicate, . ° ‘ Ἢ ᾿ Ν - 129 


Adverbs as Predicates, ? Ξ , ‘ Ἔ ᾿ : ΣῪ ΒΑ 
Unexpressed Subject, ‘ : . ee . ° ‘ - 132 
Omission of the Cc pula, ὃ : ‘ ‘ : . ‘ . . 136 
The Cases, : ᾿ : : é ᾿ ' ᾿Ξ - : 2 . 138 
Nominative and Vocative, . Ἂ ς ξ τ ὅ . . 138 
The Oblique Cases— particularly che Object, : . os ΕΣ 


The Accusative, . Ξ : ; ᾽ ‘ ᾿ . ° : . 146 
The Genitive, ; : ; ; ; ᾿ é - ‘ F . 154 


The Dative, . ‘ ‘ Ἢ ; Ἶ . ὺ τ 5 . + τὰ 


CONTENTS. 


The Verb, . ; ‘ ‘ ° ἃ 
The Passive, . ° Ἔ - Ἔ 
Verbal Adjectives, ° ° ° 
The Middle, , 4 ° 


The Tenses, ; ° R ‘ 
The Moods, ; ξ ‘ μ 
The Subjunctive, : ‘ . 


The Optative, eee Go” 
The Particle ἄν, . : ; é 
A. Conditional Sentences, 
B. Relative Sentences, ς : 
C. Temporal Sentences, 

. Causal Sentences, . ᾿ ; 


. Final Sentences (use of tva in N. T.), 


D 
E 

_ F. Illative Sentences, . 
G. Declarative Sentences, 
H. Interrogative Sentences, 
General Remarks on the Moods, 
The Imperative, ὃ 
The Infinitive, τ poten . 
The Article (τό) with the Infinitive, 
The Infinitive with τοῦ, : . 
The Infinitive for the Imperative, 
The Accusative and Infinitive, 
κελεύειν, etc., with the Infinitive, 


΄ 


καὶ ἐγένετο followed by Infinitive, ete., 


Attraction with the Infinitive, 
Construction of Relative Sentences, 


Constructio ad Synesin with the Relative, 


Attraction in Relative Sentences, 
The Participle, 

The Participle with εἶναι, 
Redundant Participles, 


Cases Absolute, : F 
| δου ς eee 
Prepositions, ; ὃ 3 


Prepositions with the Genitive, 
Prepositions with the Dative, 2 
Prepositions with the Accusative, 


Prepositions with the Genitive and Accusative, . 


xx CONTENTS. 


Prepositions (continued), 
Prepositions with all three Cases, 
Position, etc., of Prepositions, 
Negatives, 7 
(Other) Particles, 
Certain Peculiar Constructions, 
I. Attraction, 
II. Anacoluthon, 4 
III. Inversion (Hy perbaton) . 
IV. Ellipsis (Brachylogy, Pregnant ἀλλο λει. 
V. Aposiopesis, 
VI. Pleonasm, 
VII. Epexegesis, 
VIII. Zeugma, 
IX. Asyndeton tPoinspadeeds 
I. Index of Subjects, 
If. Index of Greek Words and Forms, 
Ii. Index of Passages cited from the O. T., 
IV. Index of Passages in the N. T. explained or cited, 
Glossary of Technical Terms, 


INTRODUCTION. 





B. 81, Ν. 8; C. 8.88; H. §4f.; Ὁ. 8.18. 


1. Tue basis of the Hellenistic language of the N. T. is the 
so-called Macedo-Alexandrian dialect, which, as is well 
known, became current in the time of the Ptolemies, especially 
at Alexandria, then the seat of culture; and this again was 
founded upon the κοινὴ διάλεκτος which sprang from the Attic 
dialect. From Alexandria Greek speech and culture spread 
over the Asiatic. kingdoms which arose from the Macedonian 
conquest, and accordingly over Syria. Here, of course, much 
that was local and foreign was mixed with it, not only in the 
mouth of the people, but also of the educated who wrote for 
the people. Consequently, in the language of the N.T. when 
compared with the Attic dialect, — the general basis of the 
(prose) literary language, — we may distinguish, first, the pecu- 
liarities belonging to the Alexandrian (Macedonian) dialect ; 
and secondly, especially in the Syntax, the so-called Hebraisms 
(Aramaisms). 


Remark. Since the N.T. writings, however, are (perhaps with 
the exception of Matthew) the free products of authors who thought 
and spoke in Greek, they do not exhibit nearly as many Hebraisms as 
the language of the Seventy, who translated immediately from the 
Hebrew ; they consequently constitute an independent idiom. But as 
the translated Scriptures of the Ο. Τ᾿. exercised a manifold influence 
upon the composition of the N. T. books— being referred to very often 
by the N.T. writers, who inwove into their language quotations from 
them, now literal, now free, —a N. T. Grammar must often take notice 
of the language of the Septuagint. 


2. The language of the several books of the N. T. again 
varies according as every individual writer 1) has his peculiar 
modes of expression, 2) and even certain dialectic peculiarities, 
Ὁ) and approximates more or less to the Hebrew style. In 
particular the historic books differ from the epistolary in 


consequence of their differing aim and contents; inasmuch 
1 


Le) 


πὰ ae INTRODUCTION. 


as the historic, especially the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and 
John, approximate more to the (Aramaizing) language of 
the people; the Epistles, on the other hand, part.cularly those 
written by Paul to Greek-speaking churches and persons in 
Europe and Asia, are connected as respects language with 
the literary Greek then in use, yet not without noticeable 
deviations in construction and in the formation and meaning 
of words, since the common Greek habits of thought and 
speech were not adequate to the expression of the new ideas. 
The strictly Greek style of writing is approximated most closely 
by the writings of Luke, especially by the Acts, of which the 
diction and entire mode of expression is often suggestive of 
Attic elegance and is full of genuine Greek turns and construc- 
tions, although instances of the opposite are not wanting in 
them. Lastly, the language of the Apocalypse is distinguished 
from all the rest by great and sometimes very anomalous 
peculiarities in word and structure. 

3. Since the Alexandrian dialect arose from the κοινή, it is 
not surprising that writers speak even of so-called lIonisms, 
Dorisms, etc. (though very limited in number) in the N.T. also. 
But neither the language of the N. T., nor that of the κοινοί 
in general, can be regarded as a mixture, as is sometimes 
assumed, of the various Greek dialects ; since all the dialectic 
phenomena in question are in part quite isolated and in part 
of doubtful origin. 


4. Although we possess a large number of mss.! of the 
N. T. Scriptures, some of which are very old, and the writings 
of the oldest church fathers bear witness largely to the text 
current in their times, yet very divergent forms of the text 
have come down to us. This makes it often very difficult — 
indeed, owing to the equal authority for the readings, almost — 
impossible — to distinguish between what originally belonged 


1 The most important among the so-called uncial Codices (1.6. Mss. written in 
uncial letters) are the Cod. Alexandrinus (A) now in the British Museum, Lon- 
don, Cod. Vaticanus (B) in Rome, Cod. rescriptus Ephremi (C) in Paris, Cod. 
Cantabrigiensis (D),etc. To these must now be added the Cod. Sinaiticus (&) in 
St. Petersburg (recently discovered by Tischendorf in the Convent of Mt. Sinai). 
The oldest mss. are Codd. Vat. and Sin., both of the 4th century. See, for 
details concerning the mss., the Prolegcmena of Tischendorf and Scholz, the 
Introductions of Hug, [Tregelles, Scrivener], Griesbach’s Symb. Crit., |Smith’s 
Bible Dict. Art. New Testament, especial y in the Am. ed.], ete. 


INTRODUCTION. 8 


to the author, and what to the transcribers and the time in 
which and for which they wrote. The earlier editions of the 
N. T.—as the editio princeps which appeared (at Alcala) in 
Spain, (the so-called Complutensian); then the various editions 
by Erasmus which appeared in the sixteenth century (and 
which Luther used in his translation), and particularly that 
by Robert Stephens (1550), Theodore Beza (1565), and the 
Elzevirs (1624, — which last gradually acquired general cur- 
rency in the Western Church, and hence its text is called the 
Textus Receptus) —all rest more or less upon a very imper- 
fect, in fact, arbitrary, collation of a number of Mss. appar- 
ently for the most part the more modern. In the 17th century, 
accordingly, and particularly in the 18th, a great multitude 
of various readings was collected through the more careful 
collation of the most important of the older mss., and by the 
labors of many scholars, as Bengel, Wetstein, Bentley, Birch, 
Griesbach, etc.; but the text of most of the subsequent 
editions 1 differed in the main but little from the textus recep- 
tus, since the editors (generally theologians) did not venture 
to depart too far from that to which usage had given a kind of 
ecclesiastical sanction. Hence the need of a text founded 
upon a purely philological process became more and more 
pressing. The merit of having prepared the way for such a 
thorough revision of the text upon critical and philological 
principles, belongs unquestionably to Carl Lachmann (Lehm.), 
who first in 1831 prepared a smaller edition of the N. T. and 
subsequently in 1842 a larger edition? furnished with a critical 
apparatus and Jerome’s Latin version, the so-called Vulgate. 
Almost at the same time and in pursuance of essentially the. - 
same method,-—yet often reaching different results, partly 
because starting with other critical views,? partly in conse- 
quence of using a much greater number of mss., collations, 
and critical helps of every kind — L. F. C. Tischendorf (Tdf.) 


1 The greatest reputation among those of more recent date was won by the edi- 


' tions of Griesbach which were prepared with judicious criticism and great care: 


smaller ed. Leips. 1825 ; larger ed. Vol. I. Halle, 1796 (3d ed. care of David Schulz, 
Berlin, 1827), Vol. II. Hal. 1806. 

“Novum Testamentum gr. et lat. Car. Lachmannus rec., Ph. Buttmannus 
Greece lect. auctoritates apposuit. Berol. 1842, 1850. 

8 On the critical principles of the two editors see tke Prefaces to their respective 
editions, and the discussions and ey positions in the theol. Stud. τ. Krit. there 
referred to. 


4 INTRODUCTION. 


undertook to restore the text in a series of editions of the N.T., 
the first of which appeared in 1841. After making several 
journeys expressly for this purpose, collating for himself 
nearly all the most important Codices, and publishing several 
ancient and newly-discovered manuscript documents,! he pre- 
pared a second larger edition [1849],? provided with a copious 
critical apparatus, which was followed (in 1854) by the 
Triglot edition, comprising the Greek text, the Vulgate and 
the oldest Lutheran translation [cf. note ὃ below]. Respect- 
ing other modern editions, as that of Scholz, Ed. von Muralt, 
the Acts by Bornemann, see Tisch. pref. [Tregelles, on the 
Printed Text of the Gr. N. T. 1854; cf. the Introductions, etc., 
referred to p. 2, ποίθ 1]. The present work will in the main 
take as its basis the text of Lachmann’s large edition, yet con- 
stant regard is paid to the readings of Tischendorf;* and, 
where it seemed necessary, to those of Griesbach (Grsb.) also, 
as well as of the textus receptus (Rec.). [In disputed passages 
the reading adopted by Tregelles (Treg.), in his Greek New 
Testament (exclusive of the Revelation, which is not yet pub- 
lished‘), 1857-70, will also be indicated. ] 

_1See the list of them given in the Preface to the editions of 1849 and 1854 


[more fully in his 7th ed. 1859], and at the end of his second edition of the Sept. 
(Lips. 1856), [4th ed. 1869]. 

2 Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad. antig. testes rec., appar. crit. apposuit, 
ete. Ο. Tischendorf. ed. II. Lips. 1849. 

8 There is just appearing [1855 sqq.] in separate numbers, a new (7th) edition 
of Tischendorf’s text of 1849, considerably modified in the text, but More espe- 
cially furnished with the critical Commentary of the edition of 1849 greatly 
enlarged and perfected, so that the reader is now enabled in every single case to see 
the entire stock of variants, and the kind of support given to every reading (even 
to those not received) by mss., versions, fathers, etc. ; the compendious nature of 
- the former Commentary rendered this often quite impossible, at least very trouble- 
some and uncertain. Regard will be paid to this edition also as far as it has already 
appeared. [Of his most recent (8th) critical edition (1864 sqq.), eight parts (ex- 
tending to 1 Cor. v. 7) have already (Sept. 1871) been published. Unless some 
indication to the contrary be given, this is the text of Tischendorf uniformly re- 
ferred to. He has edited besides, NV. 7’. Gr. ex cod. Sin. Lips. 1865, and NV. T. Vat- 
icanum, Lips. 1867 ; to both of these reference will be occasionally made when the 
text of a passage is in question.] [The text of Tdf.’s 8th ed. is now complete.] 

[2 It has appeared since the printing of this book was begun, and its readings 
will be referred to so far as practicable. ] 


ETYMOLOGY. 





PRONUNCIATION, ORTHOGRAPHY. 
B. §8, 2; C. § 79; W. p. 48 (47); Tdf. ed. 7 Prol. xxxvii, sq. 1. sqq. 


The letter ὁ is often represented in the mss. of the N. T. by 
e.;.yet no inference can be drawn from this respecting its 
quantity, for the change occurs in the case of long vowels 
(θλειψις, γεινωσκω) and of short (ηγγείκεν, καθεισας) alike. 
Under the influence of Itacism also it is often reproduced by 
η (as Κηλικια, πρωτοκλησια, Bpaynovt), and on the other hand 
εἰ is represented by ¢ (απεστίλεν, αὐτισθανι D). In foreign 
words the use of ev fors has been in part adopted into the text 
(see p. 6 note!). In genuine Greek words the usual spell- 
ing is followed in the printed editions. But in Matt. xxviii. 3 
all the (older) mss. give εἰδέα for ἰδέα (Lchm.); and it has 
consequently been received into the text by Tischendorf [and 
Tregelles]. This was the general mode of writing the word. 
Hence even Suidas so spelt it, adding expressly of viv διὰ τοῦ τ 
γράφουσι; cf. Bhdy. praef. ad Suid. p. 39; Fischer on Plat. 
Euthyphr. p. 125. 

A similar vacillation is found in the mss. between ε and az 
(several instances of which are given on p. 40, note 1) and 
other vowels, especialiy between ov and v (thus, almost always 
ἠνύγην for nvotynv). On the various Itacistic interchanges in 
the mss. see Tdf. praef. ad Vet. Test. pp. 72, 80 [ed. 3, and N.T. 
as above]; Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 117 sq. Before μ, ζ is often 
written instead of o, as Ζμύρνης (adopted by Tdf. [ed. 8, Rev. 
i. 11 and ii. 8]), which spelling, according to Lucian (jud. voc. 
9), must have been pretty general. 


TERMINAL LETTERS. 
B §4,5; H. §74sq.; C. $160; Ὁ. § 88sq. 
Hebrew proper nouns in the Greek text, either, 1) appear 
unaltered (and are then indeclinable), so that the eye must 
᾿ 5 


6 TERMINAL LETTERS ENCLITICS. 


6 accustom itself to a multitude of unusual terminal letters, as 
in Aaveid, Ῥαχάβ, Boot, Ναζαράθ, etc.1; or, 2) they receive a 
Greek termination (and are then inflected according to anal- 
ogy), as Mavons, ᾿Ησαΐας, “Ἱερεμίας, ᾿Ιωνᾶς, ᾿Ιησοῦς ; or, 3) 
they appear in both forms, the foreign form then always being 
indeclinable; e.g. ἡ [Ἱερουσαλήμ and τὰ Ιεροσόλυμα, Μαριάμ 
and Μαρία, ᾿Ιακώβ (so always of Jews, Matt. i. 15, etc.) and 
᾿Ιάκωβος (so of the various Christians), Σ᾿ αούλ (so of the son 
of Kish, Acts xiii. 21) and Σαῦλος (so always, in narration, 
of the apostle before he took the name of Παῦλος; but even — 
then, whenever he is addressed, the national form Σ᾽ αούλ is 
uniformly used, Acts ix. 4, etc.). Latin names are always 
Grecized, as Πιλᾶτος," ᾿Ιοῦστος, Φῆλιξ, etc. Concerning the 
inflection of Grecized proper names see p. 15 sq. below. 


- 


ENCLITICS. 
B. 14, 4. and N.1; H. §106s8q.; C. ὃ 787 sq.; J. § 64 obs. 1; Ὁ. § 55. 

The general laws of Inclination hold to their full extent in 
the N. T. writings ;— that is to say, this method of accentua- 
tion has been carried out consistently in the N.T. because 
there was no reason for following there different rules in 
reference to the accents from those followed in all other Greek 


1 As respects the spelling of foreign names there is naturally enough consider- 
able diversity, not only in the mss., but also in the several editions. Thus Lach- © 
mann, for instance, gives the name Nazareth not only in the form Na{apd@ Matt. 
iv. 18, but also Ναζαρέθ ii. 23 and Ναζαρέτ Mark i. 9; [Tdf. and Treg. use the 
forms in -e@ and -er, and also (Matt. iv. 13) the form Na{apd. ‘Tdf. in his 7th ed. 
(see Prol. p. lv. note) had decided that -εθ was the form everywhere to be used in 
Matt. and -er inJohn. In the note on Luke i. 26 in his 8th ed. he thinks this evan- 
gelist used the form in -εθ, with the exception of -pd in iv. 16]. The name David 
(in the mss. commonly written Aad) appears now in Lachmann in the form 
Aaveld throughout (not Δαυίδ or Δαβίδ), and Tdf. [and Treg.] have followed him 
in this respect. In reference to other names there is no such harmony between the 
editions, e.g. Κίς and Kels [Lchm. with whom Tdf. now and Treg. agree], Xopa¢iv 
[Lchm.] and -ζείν |Tdf. Treg.], ῥαββί [Lchm. Treg.] and ῥαββεί [Tdf., ef. Prol. 
ed. 7, p. li.], Χερουβίμ and xepovBely Lchm. [Tdf. ed. 8; Treg.] Heb. ix. 5. The 
Greek mode of writing the name Beelzebub (as Luther [so A. V.] has it after the 
Vulgate) is Βεελζεβούλ, that of Belial is more probably Βελίαρ 2 Cor. vi. 15 Tdf. 
fed. 8; Treg.]. See on this subject Tdf. ed. 2. p. 34 [Alf. N. T. Vol. I. prol. p. 
94 sq.|. 

2 As respects the accentuation Πιλάτος see Fritzsche on Mark p. 671; Winer p. 
52 (51). Bekker in his edition of Josephus always marks this and similar proper — 
names with the circumflex ; and the recent editors of the N. T. have decided in 
favor of this mode of writing. See Tisch. pref. p. 36 [ed. 7, p. xi. In ed. 8 he 
writes Πειλᾶτος ; see his note on Matt. xxvii. 2]. Elsewhere the long a in words 
of Latin origin appears marked simply with the acute (not circumflex) ; as, σενάτο. 
(Plut. Romul. 13), Avydpe, ἀλλιγάρε (26), κωμεσσάτο; (Moral. p. 726). 


MUTATIONS OF THE CONSONANTS; ASPIRATES. 4 


writings.! Dissyllables after perispomena are not marked as 


enclitic ; hence παῖς ἐστίν, γυναικῶν τινῶν, etc. Cf. Herm. de 7 
emend. rat. I. 71, 73. 


MouraTions OF THE CONSONANTS. 
Β. 816, N. 8; H. §§ 41 sq. 60; C. 8 161 sqq.; J. §§34. 88; 

The use of oo for tr, described as mainly Ionie, is in the 
N. T. the only traditional spelling with most words, as περισσός, 
θάλασσα, γλῶσσα, τάσσω, etc. In the Comparative, the forms 
κρείσσων, ἐλάσσων are interchanged with κρείττων, ἐλάττων ; 
and in certain words derived from them the rr has become 
established, as ἐλαττόω, ἐλαττονέω, ἥττημα, ἡττᾶσθαι. 

The combination pp is exchanged with pc, e.g. θαρρέω and 
θαρσέω (see Wahl, clay. min.). But instead of ἄρρην Lchm. 
has everywhere (even in Rev. xii. 5,13) restored the form 
with po [so Treg.; and Tdf. also except in Rom. i. 27]. 


ASPIRATES. 
B. 817, N.1; H. § 72; C. $167; J. 8 28, 

The use of an aspirate before a smooth breathing conflicts, 
indeed, with the general rules of orthography, which are ob- 
served also in the N.T., yet in several instances is pretty well 
established. Thus we have, e.g. ἔφιδε Acts iv. 29 [ἔπιδε Tdf.], 
aid Phil. ii. 23, ἐφεῖδεν Luke i. 25 Tdf. [ed. 7], ἀφελπίζοντες 
vi. 835 Lehm., οὐχ ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶς Gal. ii. 14 (Tdf. ody’, as cod. A has, 
@.g. in ovy’ ὄψεσθε Luke xvii. 22) — to write it thus with the 
apostrophe was the almost universal usage, see Schneider on Plat. 
Rep. p. 455; Anecd. Bekk. p. 683 sq. On the other hand, in 
the Mss. we also find often οὐκ εὗρον (Exod. xvi. 27), οὐκ ἕνεκα 
in Hermas, etc. ; but see below p. 10. On the omission of as- 
piration (οὐκ ἕστηκεν) see Tdf.’s note on John viii. 44. [He 
writes ἐπίσταται for ἐφίσταται in 1 Thess. v. 8.7 Further 
ἐφ᾽ ἐλπίδι Acts ii. 26 [(Tdf. édr.); Rom. viii. 20 Tdf.; iv. 18 
Lehm.], οὐχ ἠγάπησαν Rev. xii. 11, ody ἰδού Acts ii. 7, ody 
ὀλίγος xix. 23 Lchm., cf. xii. 18; see Lachmann’s pref. p. 42. 
The aspiration ἕλπις occurs also in inscriptions; see Franz, 
Epigr. 111. It is possible that the retention of the digamma in 
single words (cf. the Lat. video) occasioned these irregularities, 
which occur elsewhere also, see Winer p. 45 (44). 

Β. $18, Ν. 2; H. § 65, ο.; C. § 150, d.; J. §81,a.; W. p. 44. 

The form ἐθύθη, which formerly stood in the text (1 Cor 
v. 7) has now given place again to the regular form ἐτύθη. 

' The oldest manuscripts have in general few or no accents; s‘e Hug, Einl. § 50. 


8 DOUBLING OF CONSONANTS; CHANGES OF ». 


Dovusiine OF CONSONANTS. 
B. § 21, 3; H. §40b.; C. $159; Ὁ. ὃ 98; J. § 22, 8. 


Lachmann, following manuscripts, has often introduced again 
in spelling proper names @@ instead of 7@, and Tischendorf 
[and Tregelles also] has in part followed him in this. Thus 
in Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] we always find Ma@@aios (even in Acts 
i. 13) ΜΜαθθάν, but in Lehm. [Treg.] Mar@dr Luke iii. 24 
[Tdf. Ma@6a0; Treg. Ma@@az in Luke iii. 29]; and in Lehm. 
Ματθίας Acts i. 23 [Treg. Tdf. Ma@@.]. Since in matters of 
orthography no uniformity can be attained either by following 
Mss. or inscriptions, it seems advisable here, where the two 
modes of writing cannot have been governed by any difference 
in sound (cf. Lchm. pref. p. 40), to follow out consistently 
either the spelling with 0@ (which occurs here and there in 
inscriptions also), or that with 7@ as the grammarians prescribe. 

The name Zacchaeus is written Ζακχαῖος by all ; on the other 
hand, the spelling of ᾿Απφία Philem. 2, Σάπφειρα Acts v. i, is 
doubtful. 

On the neglect to double p see p. 32. 


CHANGES OF v. 
Β. $25, N. 8; H. $52; C. $166; D. 8101; 5. 28; W.p. 48; Tdf. ed. 7, Prol. p. xlvii sq. 

The rule that σύν in composition, before o followed by 
another consonant, and before ¢, drops its v, is often disregarded 
in the N. T.; thus we always find συνσταυροῦν, συνστρατιώτης, 
συνζῆν. συνζητεῖν, σύνξυγος. In other words, however, the omis- 
sion is made, 6.5. συστατικός, συστενάζω, συστοιχεῖν, συστρέφω, 
συστροφή, συσχηματίζειν. See Wahl’s clavis, and Lachmann’s 
pref. p. 40. Further, the oldest (uncial) mss. often omit the 
assimilation of the v in the two prepositions σύν and ἐν before 
labials and palatals, sometimes also before > and o, thus 
συνπαραλαβεῖν, συνμαθητής, συνκαθισάντων, ἐνκακεῖν, ἐνγεγραμ- 
μένος, συνλυπούμενος, σύνσωμα, etc., and likewise in separated 
words ἐν μέσῳ (only in the Apocalypse does Tdf. [ed. 7; ef. 
Prol. to Sept. ed. 4, p. xxii] write them always as one word: 
éupéow), ἐν Κανᾶ. In particular it may be noticed that in com- 
pounds with ἐν and σύν cod. Vat. (and Sin.) almost always neg- 
lects assimilation when these prepositions preserve their proper 
signification ; see Bttm.’s Rev. of Kuenen and Cobet’s ed. of 
cod. Vat. in the theol. Stud. τι. Krit. for 1862 p. 180. On the 


MOVABLE FINAL LETTERS. 9 


other hand, the mode of writing as one word is often found, as éu- 
μέσῳ, éyxava, συμπᾶσι, etc. ['Tdf. writes ἔνπροσθεν in Rev. iv. 6. | 


MovasLe ΕἾΝΑΙ, LEerrers. 
B. § 26, 2and 4; H. §78sq.; C. §162sq.; Ὁ. §85; J. 820. 2; W. p. 41sq. 

In the earlier editions the rules of the grammarians in ref- 
erence to v ἐφελκυστικόν were followed. These, however, were 
found to be so seldom sustained by the manuscripts, that at 
present Tischendorf has retained v ἐφελκυστικόν before every 
consonant without exception, and has carried out this rule 
consistently, with very few exceptions, throughout the N. T. 
[1.6. in ed. 7, cf. Prol. p. liii; in ed. 8 he has dropped it in 
several cases, following the best mMss.; see the note below. ] 
Lachmann (in his large edition) also writes it before all the 
consonants ; yet in particular cases, following the Mss., he has 
not admitted it; these, however, almost disappear in the mul- 
titude that remain: e.g. Matt. vi. 24; John ix. 30,32; Acts ii. 
6, 22, 40; vii. 25; ix. 22; x. 40; xii. 6; xxi.33; Rom. ii. 8; 
Rey. xix. 17; Luke xvii. 29, etc. 

The numeral εἴκοσι appears everywhere, even at the end of 
a sentence and before a vowel (Acts i. 15 [yet Treg. -cw]), 
without v ἐφελκυστικόν. So too in the O. T., see Tdf’s. ed. 
praef. p. xxxiv. [ed. 4; cf. N. T. ed. 7, p. liv.]. 

Precisely the same procedure occurs in connection with 
οὕτως, so that the other form οὕτω is at present almost com- 
pletely banished from the text [cf. Tdf. ed. 7, p. liii]. There 
are rare exceptions again in Lchm. ; as, Phil. iii. 17; Acts xxiii. 
11; Rom. i. 15; vi. 19, etc. 

1 Perhaps we can hardly hope ever to succeed in clearing up this point, since, as 
‘he liberty of later times in the use of ν was manifestly unrestrained, and the thing 
itself is so trivial, the transcribers (learned and unlearned) of the N. T. books felt 
little hesitation in employing or omitting it at option. Consequently the consis- 
tent introduction of the v ἐφελκυστικόν throughout may be justified as a silent con- 
fession of the impossibility of tracing out the original mode of spelling of the 
authors themselves ; and so much the more, as the cases in which al/ the Mss. em- 
ploy v contrary to the grammatical rule appear to be very frequent, while cases of 
the other class (in which all mss. omit it), are extremely rare. It would only be 
necessary, then, to bring one’s self to use the ν in these rare cases contrary to the 
mSss., as in Luke xvi. 13; Matt. vi. 24 (δυσί Tdf. [so too Treg.] even in ed. 7, with 
the remark: sic codd. unc. omnes, ut videtur [cf. note on Luke l.c. ed. 8]). If we are 
unwilling to do this, then Lachmann’s [and Tdf.’s?] method of allowing here as 
elsewhere the authority of the oldest mss. to decide, deserves unqualifiedly the 
preference, as affording the only stable anchorage in the matter. To be sure, we 
should need in that case a more careful collation of the manuscripts in reference 


to this particular than we now possess. 
2 


10 CRASIS AND ELISION. 


The case is quite different with respect to μέχρις and ἄχοϊς. 
Both these forms never occur before consonants, out always 
μέχρι and ἄχρι. On the other hand, μεχρὺς is regularly used 
before vowels, e.g. μέχρις οὗ, μέχρις αἵματος Heb. xii. 4. Only 
ἄχρι stands several times even before vowels; but not always 


_without reason. For while in the common phrase ἄχρις ot 


10 


the word remains everywhere unaltered, ἄχρι is everywhere 
used, manifestly to avoid cacophony, in the phrase ἄχρι ἧς 
ἡμέρας: Matt. xxiv. 38; Luke i.20; xvii. 27; Acts i. 2,cf. xxiii. 1. 
Elsewhere the two forms are interchanged before vowels, as 
ἄχρις [-pe Treg. Tdf.] αὐγῆς Acts xx. 11, ἄχρις [-pe Treg. ΤᾺ 
Armiov φόρου xxviii. 15, ἄχρι (ἄχρις Rec.) ἡμερῶν πέντε xx. 6. 


B. §27, N. 1; H. 824 Ὁ. ο.; C. 8180 ο.; J. 810, obs. 2; W. p. 48. 

Instead of ἕνεκα, ἕνεκεν (p. 72), the lonic form εἵνεκεν some- 
times occurs (which is not unknown to the Attics also, see 
Buttmann’s ausf. Sprachl.), as οὗ εἵνεκεν Luke iv. 18, εἵνεκεν 
τῆς δόξης 2 Cor. iii. 10. As respects termination, the forms 
ἕνεκεν and εἵνεκεν stand before vowels and consonants, but évexa 
only before consonants (Matt. xix. 5; Acts xxvi. 21, cf. the 
variant in Mark xiii. 9). 


CRASIS AND ELISION. 
Β. §§ 29. 80; H. $§ 68. 70; C. §§ 124. 127; D. §§ 130. 188; J. §§ 13.17; W. p. 46. 
Since the writers of the New Testament were far from feeling 
such a dislike to hiatus, as, for example, the Attic orators felt, 
the two means of preventing it, viz. Crasis and Elision, are no 
longer employed in all the cases mentioned in the Grammars. 
As respects Crasis, although it is by no means wanting in 
the N.T., yet it is restricted to a number of customary instances, 
very common in other writings also; and even in these it is far 
from being uniform. Thus we find, for example, κἀμοί and 
Kal ἐμοί, κἀγώ and καὶ ἐγώ, κακεῖ and καὶ ἐκεῖ, ταὐτά and Ta 


αὐτά; further, τοὐναντίον, τοὔνομα, κἄν for καὶ ἐάν (for so it is 


to ve taken even in Mark vi. 56, — for details respecting κἄν see 
the Syntax, p.360),ete. In the recent printed editions, how- 
ever, there is little agreement in this particular, because the 
manuscripts very often exhibit both modes of writing. 

Elision continues to be most frequently observed with ἀλλά 
and the prepositions, as ἀπό, did, etc. Yet the elided and the 
full mode of writing are constantly interchanged ; and indeed, 


THE DECLENSIONS. 11 


th.s is more or less the case in profane authors also. As re- 
spects other words, frequently written elsewhere with the 
apostrophe, as δέ, τέ, γέ, οὐδέ, ὥςτε, dpa, iva, thus much at least 
may be positively affirmed: that elision has passed almost com- 
pletely out of use; hence these words are regularly written in 
full, even where ordinary prose certainly would not have 
neglected elision. However, in such a matter as elision (and 
crasis) it is not advisable to proceed with rigorous consistency, 
as Winer maintains [p. 40], since every writer must be allowed 
the liberty of occasionally employing elision at his option, even 
in cases where he ordinarily neglects it (Matt. xxiii. 16; 1 John 
li. 5; Acts xix. 2; Heb. viii. 4; ix. 25; Rom. ix. 7, etc.). 

Remark. The quotation from Menander in 1 Cor. xv. 33 is written 
by Tdf. [so δὲ] in full (χρηστά [Treg. χρῆστα), according to the Mss., 
by Lehm. with the apostrophe χρήσθ᾽ (as a quotation), but not as the 
earlier editions have it χρῆσθ᾽, contrary to the rule (B. § 30, 3; H. 
δ 100; C.§ 774; D. § 188; J. § 63, 2). 

The current formula τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν is always written with the apostrophe, 
and by many (Lchm. also [Treg. in the majority of instances ]) as a 
single word, because it had become a complete adverb (like δηλονότι, etc.). 


DEcLENSION: ΤῊΒ DUAL. 
B, § 83, 8; H. § 115; C. 8. 118; D. $149; J. 8 72. 
The Dual, in the language of the N. T. as in Latin, has 
wholly passed out of use, in nouns as well as in verbs. 


First DEcLENsION. 
Β. § 84,2; H. § 184; C. 8 194 5ᾳ.; Ὁ. § 161; J. § 78. 

The rule that after p the Gen. ends in as is sometimes dis- 
regarded ; as, σπείρης, πρώρης (Acts xxvii. 80 Lchm. [Tdf.]), 
π-λημμύρης Luke vi. 48 ['Treg.] Tdf. (cod. Sin.), μαχαίρης, -pn, 
but not throughout (Acts xii. 2 ete. [Lchm.]), Samdelpy Acts 
v. 1 Ταῦ. [x*]. This is not to be looked upon as an Jonism 
otherwise the Nom. also would be σπείρη, πρώρη. But p in 
these words has only the influence of any other consonant 
before a; that is to say, it allows the flexion in 7 to follow in 
the Gen. and Dat. Now as these words according to the rule 
for quantity (B. § 34, N. II, 1.) have a short in the Nom., the 
aczentuation must be σπεῖρα and also by consequence πρῶρα 
(μοι. [Tdf.] πρῷρα Acts xxvii. 41,— on this spelling, which 
is common in Mss., see Dindorf in Steph. Thesaur. sub voce ; 
Htym. Magn. 692; Cobet, Praef. ad N. T. Vat. p. 12; Nov. 
Lect. 204.) ; see besides, Lchm. pref. I. p. 48. 


11 


12 


12 CONTRACTS. 


Quite isolated, yet sufficiently attested by mss. [Sir. also], 
is the Gen. in ἧς also from a pure in συνειδυίης Acts v. 2; ef. 
Tdf. pref. (1849) p. xxiv, note 1, [ed. 7, p. liv], Exod. viii. 
21. 24; 1 Sam. xxv. 20 (Vat.). 

To the examples of abstract substantives in e/a with a long 
may be added from the N. T. the following: ἐριθεία working 
Jor hire —commonly accented falsely, and ἀρεσκεία desire to 
please, from ἐριθεύομαι and ἀρεσκεύομαι (ἀρέσκεια Col. i. 10 
Lehm. Tdf. [eds. 2,7; Treg. ; Tdf. ed. 8 -«ia]). 

Concerning the Doric Genitive in a of proper names in as see below, 
p. 20. 


Seconp DECLENSION. 
B. § 85; H. § 138 sq.; C. § 199; D. 8 166 sq.; J. § 85sq. 

Several substantives in os, which ordinarily have but one 
gender, occur in the N.T. now as Masculine, now 4s 
Feminine. Thus: 

1) ἡ λιμός famine,—a use noted as Doric by old gram- 
marians, and common also in the Sept., see Is. viii. 21. As 
Fem. it appears in Luke xv. 14; Acts xi. 28 (where formerly the 
Masc. stood, and some MSS. give even λιμὸν μέγαν ... ἥτις, Te- 
specting which see in the Syntax, p. 81); as Mase. in Luke iv. 25. 

2) ἡ βάτος bramble, elsewhere also the current form (see 
Pape) Luke xx. 37; Acts vii. 35. On the other hand τοῦ βάτου 
(τῆς βάτου Rec.) Mark xii. 26. 

3) Respecting ὁ and ἡ ληνός see ὃ 123, T, p. 81. 

To the feminines which are properly Adjectives add from 
the N. T. ἡ ἄβυσσος bottomless deep, in the earlier writers only 
an adjective ; see Pape. 

The Voc. in ε of words in os is very common in the N. T., 
as κύριε, διδάσκαλε, φαρισαῖε, τυφλέ, etc. Yet the other form 
also (like the Nom.) is not rare, as vids Aaveid Matt. i. 20, ete. ; 
and it is the less so, since, as will be shown in ὃ 129 a. 5, p. 140, 
even the full form of the Nom. with the Article takes the place 
of the Voc., as ὁ θεός, etc. As a rare exception must be noted 
θεέ μου Matt. xxvii. 46, found also in the Sept., e.g. 2 Esdr. 
ix. 6; Judd. xvi. 28; xxi. 3; Sap. ix. 1. 


ConTRACTS. 
B, § 86; H. § 144; C. $200; D. 8 1069; J. $85, 2. 
The regular forms of the Gen. and Dat. of νοῦς (vod, νῷ) are 
quite unknown to the writers of the N. T., and the heteroclite 


THE DECLENSIONS. 13 


forms of the 3d Declension, in general more current in the 
later language (Ausf. Sprachl. I. p. 154), are the only ones in 
use: τοῦ νοός, τῷ vol, see Wahl. The Gen. of πλοῦς also is 
πλοός in Acts xxvii. 9. 

Of ὀστοῦν (John xix. 36) in the Plural only the uncontracted 
forms ὀστέα, ὀστέων occur: Matt. xxiii. 27; Luke xxiv. 39; 
Heb. xi. 22. 


Attic DECLENSION. 
ἶ B. § 87; H. 8146; C. 8200; Ὁ. 8110; J. § 86. 

The forms λεώς, νεώς (from which comes νεωκόρος Acts xix. 
96) of the Attic Declension are wholly unused in the N. T.: 
λαός, ναός are always used instead. Concerning proper names 
in -ws see p. 20 below. The N.T. form for ἀνώγεων (derived 
from ἄνω and yf) is ἀνάγαιον Lchm. Tdf. [Treg.], or ἀνώγαιον 
Tdf. [only in ed. 2 in Mark], Mark xiv. 15; Luke xxii. 12,—a 
Dorism (see An. Cram. II. p. 131, 14, and cf. Mullach, Gr. 
Vulgarspr. p. 21; Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 187). Cf. κτείψω p. 61. 


TuirD DECLENSION. 
Β. 841, N. 2; H. § 164. 


Respecting the (later) accentuation φοῖνιξ, κῆρυξ (1 Tim. ii. 7) 
see Winer p. 50 (49) and the works there referred to [also 
Lipsius, Gram. Untersuch. p. 36sq.; Tdf. (eds. 7,8) and Treg. 
write κήρυξ]. Like κῆρυξ we must then, with Tdf. [Treg.], 
accent Φῆλιξ also (Acts xxiv. 3, etc.). 


ACCUSATIVE SINGULAR. 
Β. § 44; H. § 157; C. § 204; D. p. 102; J. 8 92, 88q. 
From χάρις the (rare and later) Accusative χάριτα twice 
occurs: Jude 4; Acts xxiv. 27 Lchm. [now Tdf. also, and Treg. ], 
Of, xxv. 9. 


As a peculiarity of the Alexandrian dialect in general is to be noticed 
the appending of the Acc. v to the regularly formed Acc. in a, of which 
& great number of examples from the Sept. may be seen in Sturz, Dial. 
Alex. p. 127; on v ἐφελκ. with the Acc. cf. Lob. Parall. p. 142 sq.; Tdf. 
7 (cf. 8] on Heb. vi. 19 [and ed. 7 prol. p. lv]. Recent editors have 
with reason hesitated to adopt this form of the Case in the N. T. where 
it has been transmitted in a few instances, particularly by cod. Alex. (e.g. 
Rom. xvi. 11 συγγενῆν [Treg.]), because it is not sufficiently guaranteed 
by other mss. Lchm. [Tdf. ed. 7, not 8] has admitted 1t only in the 
Apocalypse, e.g. ἄρσεναν xii. 13, εἰκόναν xiii. 14, μῆναν xxii. 2, ποδήρην 
i, 13 [Lchm. in ed. min. only]. In Heb. vi. 19 also, some [Tdf. ed. 7 ; 


13 


14 CONTRACTS. 


Treg.] would read ἀσφαλῆν ; this form, however, Lchm. has not 
adopted (as Winer asserts p. 69 (67) —[yet correctly, as respects 
Lachmann’s stereotype ed.]|) as [in his larger ed.] he there accents 
ἀσφαλήν, and consequently takes it as a metaplasm after the Ist 
declension. Tdf. [2, 8] has ἀσφαλῆ with cod. Vat. [and Sin.], which 
is perhaps to be preferred (cf. ἀκλινῆ x. 23, μονογενῆ xi. 17). The 
Acc. Aiay (from Ζεύς) Acts xiv. 12 Tdf. ed. 7, is not sustained by 
codd. Vat. and Sin. 


ConTRACTS. 
Β. 8.49, N. 8; H. $176 sq.; C. §207; D. $181; J. $111, 1b. 

The Genitive Plural of neuters in os, whenever it occurs in 
the N.T., retains the uncontracted form ὀρέων Rey. -vi. 15, 
χειλέων Heb. xiii. 15. But that of ἔτος, year, is always ἐτῶν ; 
see the Lexx. 

PaRTIAL CONTRACTION. 
B. $50; H. 8 186 sq.; C. 8. 219; D. § 186 sq.; J. § 100. 

The contraction of this class of words (which was often 
neglected by Attic writers, B. § 50, N. 3) is wholly omitted in the 
N. T.,— and that not only in the Nominative (iy@ves Luke 
ix. 13), but also in the Accusative Plural ἐχθύας Matt. xiv. 17, 
στάχυας xii. 1, Boas Jno. ii. 14, 15, βότρυας Rev. xiv. 18, ete. ; 
see Wahl. 

CONTRACTS IN tg ETC. GEN. ews. 
Β. § 51; H. $185 8q.; C. § 220; D. § 186 sq.; J. § 101. 

Words of this class are uniformly contracted in the N. T.; 
indeed, contractions like πηχῶν and Gen. ἡμίσους Plur. τὰ 
ἡμίση (B. § 51, N. 5) from the later and less pure Attic seem to 
have been the only forms in use in the language of the N. T., 
thus τῶν πηχῶν John xxi. 8; Rev. xxi. 17, ἡμίσους Mark vi. 28, 
probably also τὰ ἡμίση Luke xix. 8 (ἡμέσεα Lehm. ἡμίσεια Tdf. 
[Treg.]). On the origin of the spelling τὰ ἡμίσεια (for which 
codd. Vat. and Sin. itacistically give ἡμίσια) see Bttm.’s Rev. 
of Kuenen and Cobet in the theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 194. 

The Genitive in -ews of neuter nouns of this class is used also 
in the N. T.; as, σινάπεως Matt. xiii. 31 and often. 


ConTRACTS IN ets. 
B. §52; H. § 189; C. §220; Ὁ. §190; J. § 97. 

The Acc. Plural in éas, as it is not found at all in later Greek, 
so too it does not occur in the language of the N. T., and tLe 
form in eé is the only one current; accordingly, ἀν αι νεῖᾳ 
γραμματεῖς γονεῖς, ἱππεῖς, etc. ; see Wahl. 


THE DECLENSIC NS. 15 


Varyine CONTRACTION. 
B. 868; H. $178; C. 8.218 ο.; J. § 129, 2. 

The Acc. of ὑγιής which occurs four times (see Wahl) is 
never ,vyid, but always ὑγωῆ, as sometimes also even in the 
earlier writers. 

NEUTERS IN as. 
B. $54; H. $168, 182 D.; C. § 222 ¢.; D. 8181; J. § 108, 2.8q. 

The contracted forms of κέρας and τέρας are wholly unknown 
to the language of the N. T., as in general to the Alexandrian 
dialect; hence always κέρατα, τέρατα, κεράτων, etc. see Wahl. 
The Plural of κρέας, on the other hand, is τὰ κρέα, Rom. xiv. 
21 etc. 

The Ionic change of a into ε occurs once (Luke i. 36) in the Dative 
γήρει, which the Text. Recept. against all the mss. has altered into 


, 


YP? 


CONTRACTS IN av. 
B. §65; H. $175; C. $211; D. § 184; J. § 129, Obs. 2. 
The uncontracted forms of Comparatives in wy are, even in 
the Nom. Plur. (e.g. Acts xxvii. 12), used indiscriminately 
with the contracted forms (xix. 32 etc.). 


ANOMALOUS DECLENSION. 
B. $56, N.1; H. 8 197 5ᾳ. ; C. § 223 sq. 

It seems to be expedient for convenience of reference to 
bring together here under a single head what is to be said 
respecting the declension of 

Foreign Proper Names, 
as well as of certain other names of persons and foreign (i.e. 
not Greek) words. 

1. As was remarked above, p. 5 sq., proper names which re- 
main unaltered dispense with all inflection, even when their 
ending seems to render them capable of it, as ‘Iepryé, Φαραώ 
(Acts vii. 10), ᾿Εμμαούς, ᾿Ενώς, Γεθσημανῆ (Lchm. [Treg.] 
«νεῖ [Tdf. -νεί, cf. ed. T Prol. p. lxi]), Βηθφαγῆ [Lchm., Treg. 
(except Luke xix. 29) ; Tdf. ~yy, cf. also ed. 7, Prol. p. lv, xi] ; 
many in -ών, as ‘Aapwv, ᾿Εσρών, Ζαβουλών, Σαμψών, Σιών, 
Γεδεών", and in -a, as Σάρα, Σινᾶ, μάννα, Βηθεσδά, Σ᾿ άρεπτα, 
Ἰ ολγοθᾶ, Kava, etc. 

2. As soon, however, as the word undergoes a change, 


1 That the inflection of the Lexicons Γεδεών, -ὥνος, is incorrect see Heb. xi. 32, 
and cf. in the O. T. Judges vii. 14, 18 ete. 


14 


15 


16 FOREIGN NAMES. 


especially such a change as gives it a declinable ending, in- 
flection takes place according to analogy. It is not to be 
overlooked that names well-known and of frequent occurrence, 
such as Jesus, Moses, Solomon, Jerusalem, etc., have accom- 
modated themselves in popular usage to the Greek vocal laws 
much more frequently than names less familiar. Cf. the 
Genealogies. 

3. The transformation into Greek took place most simply 
with nouns which already had an ending resembling Greek, or 
whose ending allowed itself easily to be made such. So in 
particular with proper names in wy. These have ordinarily 
Gen. -wvos, etc., as Σαρών Acc. Fapova Acts ix. 85 (Tdf. Σάρωνα 
[Treg. -v@]), Σιδών -dvos, Σίμων -wvos, (on the other hand the 
less altered name Συμεών is indeclinable, Rev. vii. 7). But 
the name Solomon has a twofold inflection: As it took in 
Greek the form Σόλομων, there resulted according to the 
analogy of similar well-known names, like Ξενοφῶν, the in- 
flection Σολομῶν (for so the Nom. must then be accented) 
Σολομῶντος. etc. ; or, according to the analogy of Βαβυλών. the 
inflection Σολομών, -dvos, etc. Both modes of inflection have 
been received into the text in Lachmann’s edition, even in the 
same writer (e.g. Matt. i. 6 and xii. 42),—a phenomenon 
which occurs several times in the case of such familiar names ; 
see Moses, Jerusalem, etc. below. Tdf., however, has given 
the preference everywhere [except Acts ii. 11 and v. 12; in vii. 
47 he writes Σαλωμών ; cf. his note on Matt. vi. 29, and ed. 7, 
p- liv] to the inflection -dvos, etc. [so Treg., yet Acts vii. 47 
-μῶν]. With the twofold inflection of Σολομῶν ef. that of the 
old Greek name Σαρπηδών Gen. Σαρπηδόνος and Σ'αρπήδοντος. 

4, Latin words and proper names, likewise, are shaped ac- 
cording to analogy an] inflected agreeably to Latin declension, 
as λεγεών (legio) Aeye@vos, Matt. xxvi. 53 ['Treg. also]; Luke 
viii. 30, on the other Fand λεγιών Mark v. 9, 15 (the spelling 
λεγιών has on the whole the greatest ms. authority in its favor 
[cod. Sin. also]; so Tdf. everywhere, see ed. 7, Prol. p. 1 
[and note on Mark v. 9 in ed. 87); εὐρακύλων (Vulg. euroaquilo, 
it is wanting in the lexicons) Acts xxvii. 14 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.] 
Northeast wind, formed like euroauster, evpovotos; Φῆλιξ 
-«κος, Καῖσαρ -os, etc. Nouns in ens receive in the Nom., in 
accordance with Greek vocal laws (B. § 25), the form in -ys, 


FOREIGN NAMES. 17 


as Κλήμης, Κρήσκης, Πούδης, and are declined Κλήμεντος, ete. 
Phil. iv. 3. 

5. Further, the following nouns are Grecized by appending 
to them (or coining for them) Greek final syllables: 1 

Feminines in a Gen. -ης, etc.; for example, Γάζα (Gen. -ns, 
Dat. - in the O. T., as, Zech. ix. 5; Josh. xi. 22) Ace. -αν. 
Further, yéevva, γεέννης, etc. ; from Latin, μεμβράνα Acc. plural 
-νας, at TaBépvar, etc. 

6. Feminines in a Gen. -as, as Μαρία, -as, -ᾳ, -av. In this 
noun, however, the inflected form is constantly interchanged 
_ with the indeclinable form Mapiap [yet according to Tdf. ed. 
T, p. xxxv, the best mss. favor the former]: Nom. Matt. xiii. 
55; Luke i. 27; ii. 19 (John xi. 82; xx. 18, Tdf. [Treg.]), 
Dat. Luke ii. 5 (Acts i. 14 Tdf. [Treg.]), Acc. Matt. i. 20; 
Luke ii. 16; John xi. 19 (Rom. xvi. 6 Tdf.), Voc. Luke i. 30 
(John xx. 16 Tdf. [Treg.]). Further, Σαμάρεια (not -ela, Acts 
viii. 14) [Tdf. now everywhere Σαμαρία] -είας, -eia, Βηθανία, 
-ias, -ἰᾳ. Μάρθα John xi. 1 (to which Wahl incorrectly gives 
the Gen. -ys) and probably ” Avva also (to judge from the Dative 
"Avva in the O. T. 1 Sam. i. 2, 5, ete.) and Εὔα (not Eia) 
Εὔαν have the Genitive in -as, contrary to the main rule, but 
in accordance with the inflection of other Greek proper names 
as Anda, etc. (B. § 34,2; H.§ 126; C.§195). Of Σουσάννα, and 
᾿Ιωάννα none of the inflected forms occur in the N. Τ.2 Byé- 
caida forms its Accusative in -dv Mark vi. 45, etc., but is 
otherwise indeclinable: John i. 45; xii.21. From the Latin 
KovaTwola, -as, etc. 

Feminines in ἡ Gen. -ns: -7 ᾿Ιόππη, Σαλώμη. etc. 

7. Masculines in ys, -ov, -y, τὴν, e.g. ᾿Ιωάννης, ᾿Ιορδάνης, 
and, from the Latin, κοδράντης (quadrans), φαιλόνης (paenula 
φαινόλης Poll.). ᾿Ιωάννης (in cod. Vat. almost always, in Sin. 
often written with one v: ‘Iwdvys) forms its Dat. according to 
the same mss. also ᾿Ιωάννεν (Iwaver), — heteroclitically there- 
fore ; cf. Μωυσῆς No. 11, p. 19. 

8. Masculines in as, -ov, -a, -av. This inflection appears 
in many words, but always with a preceding vowel, ὁ or e, as 
Ἱερεμίας, ᾿Ησαΐας, Bapayias, ’Efexias (Lchm. -eias ; Gen..-ov 


16 


1 Τὴ other writers, as Josephus, etc., this is done with a far larger number of ee 


names than in the Old and New Test. 
2 On the other hand, in the O. T. the Gen. of Σωσάννα (Σωσάννης) occurs in 
Sus. 27. 
8 


17 


18 FOREIGN NAMES. 


2 Kings. xviii. 13, ete.), Ζαχαρίας, ᾿Ηλίας, ᾿Ιεχονίας (Gen. -ov 
1 Chron. iii. 17, -a Bar. i. 3), ᾿Ιωσίας (-ov 2 Kings xxiii. 34, -a 
Jer. xxv. 1), Ματταθίας, Οὐρίας, ’Avdpéas ; and probably also 
Μεσσίας, Ματθίας, ’Ofias, Iovvias, of none of which has the 
Gen.been preserved. Respecting ’Avavias see below, 13,c) p. 20. 

9. Masculines and Feminines in os, -ov, etc.; as, ᾿Ιάκωβος, 
Σαῦλος see p. 6, Ζακχαῖος, MabOaios, Iderpos, ἡ Δαμασκός, ete., 
and those formed by change of the Latin ending ws: Πόμτιος 
Πιλᾶτος, Kovdptos, Πόπλιος, Ποτίολοι (Puteoli), ΣΧῶρος i.e. 
Caurus or Corus Northwest wind (wanting in Pape) Acts 
xxvii. 12. ; 

Neuters in ov from the Latin: φραγέλλιον flagellum John ii. 
15, σουδάριον, widvov a mile, etc. 

10. Neuters in a, των, τοῖς, -α. This inflection is followed 
by several names of cities, formed after the analogy of ta 
"APSnpa, Θνάτειρα, etc., — especially by Jerusalem: τὰ “]εροσό- 
λυμα, -ων, -o1s; this inflected form, however, is constantly in- 
terchanged (often in close proximity) with the O. T. indeclinable 
form ἡ ‘Iepovoadnjp, e.g. Luke ii. 22 and 25, 42 and 43. In 
address the Jewish form is always used (Matt. xxiii. 37, etc.). 
John uses only the first form τὰ ‘I. (see Heydler, iiber die 
Namen Hierosolyma, ete., Progr., Frankf. 1856). The third 
form given in the lexicons is found in only a single passage in 
the whole Bible: Matt. ii. 8 πᾶσα ‘Iepocod\vpa. Yet we cannot 
infer from this an inflection in -ys, -7, etc. as given in the lex- 
icons, since in this passage “IepocdAvpa seems to be used more 
like the indeclinable ἱΙερουσαλήμ (moreover πᾶσα is wanting 
in cod. D), and consequently, as the name of a city, has been 
construed as feminine. Such a combination certainly would 
have been impossible to a native Greek author. 

On the other hand Γόμορρα has both inflections: Gen. -as, 
and -ων Dat.-ous. In the O.T. the forms in -wy and -οἰς do not 
occur (but Nom. and Acc. -a Gen. -as) so that these forms seem 
to have been first developed in the N. T. by the word’s being 
frequently connected with τὰ Σόδομα (-ων, -ovs) which is always 
newer. 

Avééa has -ns in the Gen. (Acts ix. 38 [Tdf. Treg. give -as]), 
but just before it twice occurs inflected like a Neuter ina: Ace. 
Avdda vs. 82, 85; Josephus (B. J. 1, 15, 6 ad fin.) uses it as a 
Neut. Plur.; cf. Τύμορρα in the O. T. Θυάτειρα on the other 


FOREIGN NAMES. : 19 


hand (of which the Gen. in -wy occurs Acts xvi. 14, the Dat. 
in -os Rey. ii. 18) has once the Acc. in -av, Rev. i. 11; and 
Avortpa in Lycaonia has its Dat. in -o1s, but for its Acc. τὴν 
“Δύστραν Acts xiv. 6, 8, 21, ete. 

11. Masculines in ys of the third declension. Here belongs 
especially the name Μωυσῆς. Its first syllable is in recent 
editions almost uniformly written wv, and probably therefore 
in the solitary passage where Lchm. has left the simple ὦ 
(Rom. ix. 15), the other spelling wv is with Tdf. [Treg., sox 
also] to be restored [Tdf. puts a diaeresis over the v, see 
ed. 7, p. Ixii; and cf. Grimm’s Lexicon]. The common inflec- 
tion is Gen.(uniformly ) -éws, Dat. -e?, Acc. -éa (Luke xvi. 29),— 
thus quite after the analogy of the Greek word "Apns; hence 
it is idle to assume an unused Nominative form in eds, as is 
generally done in the lexicons. In addition to these forms 
there have been preserved (according to the Declension which 
follows) a Dative in -7 twice, Rom. ix. 15 (Tdf. Mwicet [Treg. 
-et| Acts vil. 44, and an Accusative -ἣν four times, Acts vi. 11; 
vii. 85; 1 Cor. x. 2; Heb. iii. 3. On the derivation and 
spelling of the word see also Fr. on Rom. ix. 15, and cf. Joseph. 
adv. Ap. 1. 31. 

Further Μανασσῆς, ---- the Acc. of which ends in -ἢ Matt. i. 10 
(Gen. -ἢ Sept.), and ᾿Ιωσῆς with a twofold inflection ᾿Ιωσῆτος 
(Mark vi. 3; xv. 40) and ᾿Ιωσῇ in accordance with the Declen- 
sion which follows. 

12. There still remain a large number of foreign names and 
words, which follow none of the modes of inflection described 
above, yet among which there exists a great and obvious 
analogy. Mehlhorn (Gr. Gram. p. 182) appropriately proposes 
for all these words a special declension, which on account of 
the simplicity of its endings he calls the weak inflection. The 
following is the Table: 


as a φ αν α 
nS a 7 La 7 
ως ω ῳ ων @ 


ους ου ου ουν ου 
The first two series, it will be noticed, are founded on the first 
declension, the remaining two upon the second. This inflec- 
tion is ordinarily, but not invariably, distinguished by the 
_ eircumflex on the last syllable. | 


18 


20 FOREIGN NAMES. 


138 A. Words in as. The inflection of these, especially 
when they are not perispomena, agreey closely with that of 
words which have the Doric Genitive (Ὁ. 12; cf. H. § 136 
Rem. d.), as ᾿Αννίβας etc., and has manifestly been formed after 
the analogy of this declension. In later times this was the 
most usual inflection of foreign proper names, and of such as had 
undergone a violent abbreviation (as ᾿Αλεξᾶς from ᾿Αλέξανδρος); 
and many newly-formed words followed it. Here belong 

a) All circumflexed proper names, as ᾿Ιωνᾶς, Θωμᾶς, Bap- 
paBas, BapoaBas, Κηφᾶς, Κλωπᾶς (John xix. 25), Χουζᾶς ; 
further ᾿Αρτεμᾶς, Anuds, ᾿Επαφρᾶς, Ἑρμᾶς, Ζηνᾶς, Θευδᾶς, 
Δουκᾶς, Μελεᾶς, ᾿Ολυμπᾶς, Παρμενᾶς, Σ᾽ κευᾶς, Σ᾽ τεφανᾶς, sup- 
posed to be mere abbreviations of current Greek names, as 
᾿Αρτεμίδωρος, Δημήτριος, ᾿Επαφρόδιτος, Znvddwpos (Anec. Bek. 
Ρ. 857), Δουκιανός, Μελέαγρος, Παρμενίδης, etc. 

b) Circumflexed appellatives of foreign origin, e.g. κορβανᾶς, 
σατανᾶς, μαμωνᾶς Gen. -ἃ, etc. 

6) Barytone proper names whose last syllable is preceded 
by a consonant, as "Avvas, ’Apétas, Βαρνάβας, Iovéas Luke i. 
39; Mark vi. 3, etc.), Καϊάφας (or Καΐφας Luke iii. 2 Lehm.) ; 
from the Latin, “Aypirmas Agrippa. The same analogy, 
doubtless, was followed .also by ᾿Αντίπας ( Avrimatpos?), 
Κλεόπας (KvXeorarpos? Luke xxiv. 18), ᾿Ελύμας ; and from 
the Latin, “Axdiras Aquila, Σίλας (Acts xv. 22, etc., always 
called by Paul SArovavds Silvanus, 2 Cor. i. 19, etc.), —of | 
which no Genitive is found. “Avavias is generally given in 
the lexicons with Gen. -a, contrary to analogy (see No. 8, above), 
but in the N. T. no Gen. is found; in the O. T., indeed, oceurs 
the Gen. ’Avavia (Neh. iii. 23), but also the regular "Avaviov 
Tob. v. 12 (13). Cf. ᾿Ιωσίας, etc. in No. 8, p. 18, above. 

14 B. Words in ns. The proper name Φιλῆς, -ἢ, etc. serves 
as the paradigm. From the N. T. are to be referred to this 
class only a few isolated forms, as the collateral forms of 
Μωυσῆς given above, p. 19, and the Gen. "Iwo from ᾿Ιωσῆς 
(Matt. xxvii. 56 [Tdf. reads ᾿Ιωσήφ, after x etc.]). The proper 
names ᾿Ιαννῆς and ᾿Ιαμβρῆς have no oblique cases extant; 
yet according to Suidas (sub voce ) the Gen. of ᾿Ιαμβρῆς was 
᾿Ιαμβροῦ. The Acc. ᾿Ιαμβρῆν occurs in Apocryphal writings. 

15 Ὁ. Words in ws. These, according to Mehlhorn, ought 
properly all to bu accented as perispomena, as is still done, for 


FOREIGN NAMES. 91 


example, in rads, ταῶ (B. § 58), according to the direction of 
the ancient grammarians. Commonly, however, this rule is 
not observed in the editions (and mss.), but the words are 
accented as oxytones, and thus made to agree perfectly with 
the so-called Attic second Declension (B. § 87). And in gen- 
eral, amid the variety of views concerning this declension, even 
among the ancients, harmony can hardly be attained. 

Accordingly, the proper name ᾿Απολλώς is inflected in the 
N. T. after the Attic 2d Declension, thus Nom. ’AzroAd@s 
Acts xviii. 24, Gen. -ὦ 1 Cor. i. 12, but likewise Acc. -ώ Acts 
xix. 1, yet in 1 Cor. iv. 6 Acc. ᾿Απολλών (after A, B, &); so 
too Kas the name of an island, Acc. Κῶ Acts xxi. 1. 

16D. Words in ots. Inthe N. T. only ᾿Ιησοῦς, -od, -od, -ovv, 
-ov. Lastly, the analogy of all these words is closely followed 
by the inflection of , 

E) Aevis [-εἰς, etc. Ταῦ, (except in Rev. vii. T, ed. 7), Treg.] 
Luke v. 29, Gen. Aevi iii. 24, Acc. Aeviv v. 27. 

17. The Gender of Proper Names in the case of persons 
follows the sex. As a specialty it is to be noticed, that the 
name of the heathen god Βάαλ has the feminine article in a 
quotation by Paul from the O. T. (Rom. xi. 4). In the O. T. 
ὁ and ἡ Βάαλ occur ; see Winer 179 (168). 

Χερουβίμ (Lchm. [Tdf. 7, 8; Treg.] -Beiv) is construed as a 
neuter plural in Heb. ix. 5. 

18. Names of cities, even when indeclinable, follow the 
general rule, that is to say, are feminine; as, ἡ ᾿ΙΪερουσαλήμ, ἡ 
Βηθλεέμ, ἡ Kava, etc. (John iv. 46, etc.). But if they are de- 
clinable the general rules hold ; as, ra Σόδομα, οἱ Φίλυπποι, ete. 
On ἡ ‘Iepocodvpa see No. 10 above, p. 18. 

In like manner the names of rivers are Masculine, according 
to the general rule, as ὁ ‘Iopdavns ; so, too, when indeclinable: 
ὁ Kedpdév (John xviii. 1 Lehm.), ὁ Σιλωάμ John, Luke, (in 
Josephus also ἡ Scr. sc. πηγή, B. J. ὃ, 4, 2; 12, 2). 

19. The names of the mountains Σινᾶ and Σιών are given 
in the lexicons as masculine. Their gender is not evident 
from the N. T., since they occur either without the article or 
in connection with τὸ ὄρος, and τὸ Suwa (Gal. iv. 25 Lchm.) 
may be explained by the rule that a word regarded as an 
independent object is made neuter. When we consider, ‘how- 
ever, that proper names frequently take the gender of the most 


19 


20 


99 ANOMALOUS DECLENSION. 


current appellative belonging to them (here, therefore, τὸ ὄρος), 
it is much more probable that these indeclinable names of 
mountains are also neuter. With this agrees the current O. T. 
phrase τὸ ὄρος τὸ Σινᾶ (Exod. xix. 11, 18, etc.), and there is 
no reason for giving a different explanation of this combination 
from that of τὸν ποταμὸν τὸν Εὐφράτην (Rev. xvi.12). Further, 
Σιών when, as is so often the case, it stands for all Jerusalem, 
is always feminine in the prophetic writings of the O. T., as 
Ps. exxxil. 138; Lam. i. 17; Zech. viii. 2, ete. 

The Mt. of Olives, commonly called τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν (Matt. 
xxi. 1 etc.) also has the single name ᾿Ελαιών, Gen. -@vos (Acts 
i. 12 ἀπὸ ὄρους τοῦ καλουμένου ’EXa@vos),and must accordingly, 
like Greek names of mountains of the same form (Ki@apav, 
“Ελικών, etc.), be masculine. Nevertheless, in Luke xix. 29; 
xxi. 37 it is treated as indeclinable, consequently as neuter: 
πρὸς TO ὄρος TO καλούμενον ᾿Ελαιών ; so, too, in Josephus (e.g. 
Antig. 20, 8,6; B.J. 5, 2,3). Recent editors have, accord- 
ingly, rejected the former accentuation -ῶν and write ᾿Ελαιών, 
to distinguish it from the other designation τῶν ἐλαιῶν, which 
Luke also uses just afterwards: xix. 87; xxii. 389. Cf. Fritzsche 
ad Marc. Exc. III. 


ANOMALOUS DECLENSION. 
B. § 56, N. 2; H. 8. 197; C. § 2238q.; J. § 116 sq. 

The word σκότος, which so frequently occurs, is of the newter 
gender throughout the N. T. The statement in Wahl that it 
is also mase. is supported only by the reading — long ago dis- 
carded — of the Rec. in Heb. xii. 18 (τῷ σκότῳ). 

Ἔλεος, of the masculine gender in Attic authors (see Pape), 
is in the N. T. only neuter,—in the four or five passages 
where the Rec. had the masculine the neuter having now been 
restored ; see the passages in Wahl. 

Πλοῦτος, elsewhere only masculine, is often used by Paul as 
neuter, but only in the Nom. and Acc., e.g. 2 Cor. viii. 2; Eph. 

1 Names of mountains, to judge from the Sept., have no established gender, — 
The neuter, however, is the most common. Thus we have τὸ ᾿Ιταβύριον ( Tabor), 
and, in the same combination as that given above with Sinai, τὸ ὄρος τὸ Ἐφραΐμ, 
τὸ ὄρος τὸ Σηείρ, τὸ ὄρος τὸ ᾿Αβαρίμ, τὸ ὄρος τὸ ᾿Αερμών, etc. Lebanon is masculine, 
ὁ Λίβανος, likewise Carmel, ὁ Κάρμηλος or ὃ Χέρμελ Isa. xxxii. 15 sq.; Jer. xlvi. 
(xxvi.), 18; but τὸ ὄρος τὸ Καρμήλιον also occurs (2 Kings ii. 25), and once even 7 


Κάρμηλος (1 Kings xviii. 42), as also 7 ᾿Αερμών Josh. xi. 3 etc. But 4 Θαβώο 'n 
1 Chron. vi. 77 is the city or region of Tabor. 


-. 


DEFECTIVE NOUNS. 93 


i. 7, οἷο. ; in the Gen. always of the 2d Declension, Rom. xi. 33, 
etc.; (the Dative does not occur). 

Ζῆλος is masculine as it is everywhere in Greek authors ; 
but in 2 Cor. ix. 2 (codd. Vat. and Sin.), perhaps also in 
Acts v. 17 (Vat.), the preference might be given to the neuter 
form (as in the Clem. Epp.). Only once, in the adverbial ex- 
pression cata ζῆλος (Phil. iii. 6), has the neuter been adopted 
by all the mss. [Sin. also]. 

*Hyos, altogether a later word (see Thom. Mag.), is mas- 
culine; but in Luke xxi. 25 the Genitive is ἤχους (if the 
reading [so Sin. also] is correct). 

Instead of ἡ νίκη, which appears only once (1 John v. 4), the 
collateral form τὸ vixos, common elsewhere also in later writers, 
is usual; as, Matt. xii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 57, etc.; so, too, in the 
Sept. 

B. § 56, 6; H. § 200; C. § 226; D. § 284; J. ὃ 85, Obs. 2. 

Of δεσμός both plurals (-μά and -μοί appear in the N. T.— 21] 
the first in Luke. That Paul takes the word as masculine 
follows from Phil. i. 18 (in the other passages the gender is 
not evident): and the usage of the Sept. (Jer. ii. 20; Job 
Xxxix. 5, etc.). 

A metaplasm of the N. T. language, which however is in 
plain analogy with other metaplasms (cf. πρόσωπον, ὄνειρον, 
Β. ὃ 58; H.§ 199 and D; Ὁ. § 225 f.; Ὁ. § 284; J. 8 117), 
is found in τὸ σάββατον which regularly has σαββάτου, -w, 
Plur. τὰ σάββατα (Acts xvii. 2; see the following paragraph) 
σαββάτων. The Dative plural is almost uniformly σάββασιν ---- 
from the Hebr. nav, as if from a theme not in use. The reg- 
ular form, τοῖς σαββάτοις, Lchm. has adopted from the single 
codex B in only two passages: Matt. xii. 1,12; but between 
them (vs. 5), he gives σάββασιν as everywhere else. 


DEFECTIVE, PLURAL, AND INDECLINABLE Nouns. 
B. $57, 1; H. $201; C. § 2278q.; D. § 284; J. 88 114. 118, 

Jewish Names of Festivals have the plural form, according 
to Greek usage, as τὰ ἐγκαίνια, τὰ ἄξυμα ; “ἴῃν like manner τὰ 
γενέσια birth-day festival, and sometimes οὗ γάμοι when it is 
synonymous with convivium, epulae, Matt. xxii. 2; Luke xii. 
36; xiv. 8. Also the plural τὰ σάββατα, both when it signifies 
a festival and a week, frequently alternates with τὸ σάβ- 
Barov ; see Wahl, and cf. e.g. Luke xviii. 12 with xxiv. 1, ete. 


22 


94 LIST OF ANOMALOUS NOUNS. 


The Plural τὰ σάββατα appears even in the Sept., e.g. Lev. 
xxiii. 32, etc. Respecting Names of Cities see above, p. 18. 

Further, the following are sometimes used as Plurals in 
the N. T.: οἱ κόλποι in the phrase ἐν τοῖς κόλποις τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ 
εἶναι Luke xvi. 23; τὰ ἀργύρια in the sense of money Matt. 
xxvill. 12 (Vulg. pecuniam), cf. the common reading in Mark 
xiv. 11, where, as in most other passages, the Sing. has been 
adopted ; τὰ ὀψώνια wages, synonymous with τὸ ὀψώνιον (Luke 
iii. 14, etc., cf. the Lat. stipendium) ; and, agreeably to a Jewish 
mode of thought, οἱ αἰῶνες the world (a2bi> Ps. cxlv. 13) Heb. 
i. 2, and οἱ οὐρανοί (ov2vin) Matt. iii. 16, etc. Also ‘ the holy 
place’ in the temple and ‘ the holiest of all’ are called in Heb. 
ix. 2,3 τὰ ἅγια and ἅγια ἁγίων after Ezek. xli., xlii. ete. Also 
the newly-formed word μεγιστᾶνες (equivalent to μέγα δυνά- 
μενοι, see Phryn. and Thom. Mag. sub voce) seems (like pro- 
ceres) to have been ordinarily used only in the Plural. 

In the case of ai θύραι (fores) and τὰ ἱμάτια (clothing) the 
Plural form is sufficiently accounted for by the meaning. 

The foreign word τὸ σίκερα intoxicating drink, like τὸ πάσχα, 
is indeclinable; in the N. T. it occurs only in the Acc. (Luke 
i. 15), but in the Sept. also in the oblique cases (Num. vi. 3; 
Deut. xiv. 26). 


List or AnomaALous Nouns. 
Β. §58; H. § 202; C. $2238q.; D. § 284; J. § 112. 

Instead of ὁ ἅλς salt (Mark ix. 49, 50) in the N. T. the later 
neuter form is more common: τὸ ἅλας (Gen. ἅλατος), Dat. 
ἅλατι Col. iv. 6, [in Mark ix. 50 Tdf. twice reads Nom. τὸ ἅλα, 
with x", etc.]. 

The Acc. of ἀρτέμων (Gen. -ovos) is according to mss. [Sin. 
also] ἀρτέμωνα in Acts xxvii. 40; so the Scholiast on Eurip. 
Med. 273. 

In the N. T. ἔρις, after the analogy of ὄρνις, has the two 
Plur. forms ἔριδες, 1 Cor. i. 11, and ἔρεις --- at present only in 
Tit. iii. 9. In the other passages the editors have given the 
preference to the Sing. ἔρις (2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 20; 1 Tim. 
vi. 4); yet in Cor. and Tim. Tdf. ed. 7 restores ἔρεις again, [so 
Treg. in Cor. ; & only ἔρις, which Tdf. now adopts uniformly. ] 

Of κλεῖς, likewise, both forms are found in Sing. and Plur.: 
κλεῖν Rev. iii. 7, κλεῖδα Luke xi. 52, ras κλεῖς Rev. i. 18, κλεῖδας 
Matt. xvi. 19. 


ADJECTIVES. 25 


Συγγενής, properly an Adjective, iike all words in ys of the 3d 
Declension, regularly follows the analogy of τριήρης. Only once is 
the Dat. Plur. ovyyeveto. found as an important variant Mark vi. 4 
(also 1 Macc. x. 89). Whether this erroneous form, which arose 
probably from the resemblance between the inflection and that of 
nouns in evs (cf. Μωυσῆς), is to be attributed in the above passage to 
the scribes or to the author, may be doubtful; and on this account the 
reading has not been adopted [yet so in Mark, Tdf. eds. 7 and 8, and 
Treg.|. But it makes in favor of the latter supposition that in another 
passage (Luke ii. 44) [many of | the very same mss. (with the excep- 
tion of cod. Vat. which here also exhibits συγγενεῦσι) do not repeat 
the termination -eto. but give the regular form συγγενέσι, which also 
harmonizes perfectly with the general accuracy of form characteristic 
of Luke, as on the other hand the form ovyyevedou is congruous with 
Mark. Further, that the form acknowledged to be erroneous should 
be early altered by other scribes into the regular one, is quite natural ; 
and finally, it appears from the grammarian Herodian, in Cram. An. 
ΠῚ. p. 246, that this corrupt form must have actually been in frequent 
use (πολλῶν σφαλλομένων κατὰ κλίσιν δοτικῆς πτώσεως Kal λεγόντων 
συγγενεῦσι κτλ.). Otherwise he would have hardly found it necessary 
to demonstrate in detail, as he does, its erroneousness. 

Κατήγωρ, a solecistic by-form of κατήγορος, occurs only in Rev. xii. 
10; (it is wanting in the lexicons). 

ADJECTIVES. 
B. $60; H. § 209 sq.; C. ὃ 229 sq.; D. $196; J. 8.127. 

In the distinction of Genders of Adjectives in os certain 
irregularities and departures from the common usage occur in 
the N. T. The following deserve especial notice : 

βέβαιος, in Attic authors generally of the common gender, 
always in the N. T. takes the form βεβαία in the Fem. ; see 
Wahl. ἔρημος, on the other hand, which in Attic writers 
has three endings, has invariably the Fem. ἔρημος Gal. iv. 27, 
etc., and Wahl is to be corrected accordingly. 

ἕτοιμος fluctuates between three terminations and two, 
ome. xxv. 10: 2 Cor: ix. 63-1 Pet. i. δ. 

apy Fem. of ἀργός (1 Tim. v. 13; Jas. ii. 20) is altogether : 
a later form ; see Pape, and cf. Tit. i. 12. 

Not only ἐπουράνιος, which as a composite adj. must be 
of the common gender (Heb. iii. 1, etc.), but also the simple 
οὐράνιος, which is regularly of three endings (see Pape), 
has two terminations in the Ν. T.: στρατιὰ οὐράνιος Luke ii 
13; ὀπτασία οὐράνιος Acts xxvi. 19. 

4 


20 ANOMALOUS ADJECTIVES. 


ὅμοιος is always of three endings, only in Rey. iv. 3 we 
find ἦρις ὅμοιος (according to cod. A). 

ὁσίους, too, in 1 Tim. ii. 8, as its very position indicates, 
is to be joined to χεῖρας, as is done by most of the commentators 
and the ancients. The Fem. does not occur elsewhere. 

αἰώνιος, ordinarily even in the N. T. of the common gender, 
has the Fem. aiwvia only in two passages: 2 Thess. ii. 16; 
Heb. ix. 12, (cf. the common reading in 1 John ii. 25; Acts 
xiii. 48). ' 

B. § 60, 6; Η. §208; Ὁ. § 29; J. $121, 2. 

χρύσεος contracts its feminine χρυσῆ Heb. ix. 4; on the 
other hand, the Acc. χρυσᾶν is given by Lehm. [Tdf. Treg.; so ~ 
cod. Sin.] in Rev. i. 13 (analogous to the Plural χρυσᾶς neut. 
χρυσᾶ). Contraction is neglected in the Gen. Plur. χρυσέων 
in Rev. ii. 1 Lchm.[Trg.,Tdf.7]. In Rev. also occur according 
to cod. Sin. χρύσεα, yadxea,— forms which (according to 
Phryn. p. 207) must have been generally in use among writers 
of thé κοινή. 

B. § 62; H.°§ 212; C. § 23; J. $122, 1. 

The Genitive βαθέως, which now on Ms. authority [Sin. 
also] is substituted in Luke xxiv. 1 for the regular βαθέος, 
rests on later usage ; see B. §51 N. 2; H. § 186; D.§101; J. 
l.c.; Tdf. ed. 7, p. liv. Perhaps, too, in 1 Pet. iii. 4 πραέως 
[Tdf. Treg.] should be read instead of πραέος. 

Respecting ἡμίσους, etc., see p. 14. 


B. § 63,1; H. $217; J. 8.180, 1. 

The plural νήστεις from νῆστις, Matt. xv. 32; Mark viii. 8 
[here Tdf. now reads νήστις ; so too in Matt. l.c. edd. manual. 
et stereot.], is a collateral form of the Plur., instead of νήστιες 
or vnatides, Which occurs also elsewhere, but is censured by the 
Atticists; see Lob. ad Phryn. p. 326; Fritzsche ad Marc. Exe, 
III. p. 796. 


ANOMALOUS ADJECTIVES. 
B. § 64,2; H. $219 a.; C. ὃ 236 ο.; D. § 216; J. § 125, Obs. 2. 


The form πρᾷος seems to be wholly unknown to the language 
of the N. T.; for not only in Matt. xi. 29 — the single passage 
where it still stood — has it been made by the editors to give 
way to the other form pais, agreeably to all the other passages 
(see Wahl), but the abstract substantive πραότης also has 
been, at least by Tdf., everywhere altered into πραὕτης. And 


COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. oT 


this procedure is the more defensible because in the two pas- 
sages still remaining (Gal. vi. 1; Eph. iv. 2) in which Lcehm. 
has left the form πραότης (which he writes without iota sub- : 
script), important Ms. authorities [Sin. also] offer the other 
form; see the other passages in Wahl, to which Col. iii. 12 
is to be added. 

An example of the use of the indeclinable word ἐπάναγκες 
as an adjective by means of the article, after the manner of 
adverbs (see § 125, 10 p. 95), is Acts xv. 28 πλὴν τούτων τῶν 
ἐπάναγκες. Elsewhere the word does not occur in the N. T. 


COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES IN -0s. 
B. 866, Ν. ὅ; H. § 221; C. $257; J. § 135. 

The comparative of διπλοῦς, --- which in its ethical sense 
antithetic to ἁπλοῦς (see Pape) is capable of comparison, — 
-isin Matt. xxiii. 15 δειπλότερος, a form which can be shown 
elsewhere also in later authors (Appian, Praef. 10) and is con- 
structed as if from dvds, of which the Neut. plural διπλᾶ can 
be authenticated, at least in later poets; see Steph. Thesaur. 
and Lob. ad Phryn. p. 234. 


OTHER Forms oF ComMPaRISON. 
B. § 67; H. $222; C. §261; Ὁ. §277; J. 8.186. 

The form of the comparative of ταχύς peculiar to later Greck: 
ταχίων, τάχιον, is the only form in use in the N. T. as 
well as in the Old. In the New Testament, however, it occurs 
only as an adverb in the neuter: John xx. 4, etc. The com- 
mon form θᾶσσον has so completely passed out of use that it 
has not been preserved even as a variant. 


ANOMALOUS CoMPARISON. 
B. § 68; H. $223; C. § 262; 2. § 280; J. $187. 

The common comparison of ἀγαθός is κρείσσων, κράτιστος 
—the latter employed in addressing persons of rank and au- 
thority: Acts xxiii. 26; xxiv. 3; xxvi. 25 (cf. Luke i. 3; the 
Vulg. always uses optimus). Of the other forms of comparison 
only βέλτιον occurs once (ali an adverb), 2 Tim. i. 18. 

The ordinary comparative of κακός is yelpwy—as well in 
the signification deterior as pejor, Matt. xxvii. 64, etc. The 
superlative does not occur. 


25 


28 DEFECTIVE COMPARISON. 


DEFECTIVE COMPARISON. 
B. § 69,2; H. § 224; C. $262; D. $282; J. $140, 

The positive #pewos (formed from ἠρέμα), which is very 
rare and not yet satisfactorily established from other writers, 
occurs in 1 Tim. ii. 2. Cf. Lobeck, Path. Proll. p. 158. 

The adjectival forms of the comparative dvwrepos, etc., 
(questioned in B. § 69, 2 note) cannot be denied, at least in 
later writers. Accordingly in the N. T. we have them not 
only used adverbially in the Neuter, ἀνώτερον Luke xiv. 10 ete., 
but even as adjectives: τὴν ἐσωτέραν φυλακήν (Acts xvi. 24, ef. 
Heb. vi. 19), τὰ κατώτερα μέρη Eph. iv. 9. 


B. § 69, N. 8; C. § 262 (c); D. § 283; J. § 140, 

Two examples of double comparison occur in the Ν, T.: 
3 John 4 wevfotrepos,and Eph. iii. 8 ἐλαχιστότεῤος. In 
general it is to be noticed, that in all such formations, which are 
not altogether rare either in poets or in prose writers, the two 
different kinds of comparison (by -τερος, etc. and -ίων, ete.) are 
always found united. The Latin language also presents anal- 
ogous phenomena, which in general belonged probably more 
to the popular language and to the class of arbitrary formations. 

NUMERALS. | 
Β. 8 70.1; H. § 255; C. §248q.; D. §249 sq.; J. § 166. 

Respecting εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς and similar expressions, see p. 80. 

The later spelling οὐθείς, μηθείς is found in the N. T. 
(see Ταῦ, 7, 8 on1Cor. xiii. 2) alternating with the common 
one; indeed the two are found close beside each other, as in 
1 Cor. xiii. 2, 3 (ef. Ιεροσόλυμα, Μαρία above, pp. 17,18). The 
same holds true of the derivative ἐξουθενέω, only that here the 
other form with 6 is incomparably more rare; Lchm. gives it 
only.in Mark ix. 12 and 2 Cor. x. 10; [so Treg. in Mark]. 

Remark. The Form ἐξουδενόω, which is given in the lexicons 
on account of Mark ix. 12, has been altered into the common form in 
-éw after preponderant Ms. authority. On the other hand, the form 
in -dw is very common in the Sept., and has now been adopted again 
by Tdf. in Mark ix. 12 (after Sin.) The mss. fluctuate between 
ἐξουδενέω, -dw, ἐξουθενέω, -dw; cf. Steph. Thesaur. sub voce, 

The form δυοῖν from δύο no longer occurs, but instead of it 
in the Genitive the indeclinable form δύο, e.g. Matt. xviii. 16, 
and in the Dative δυσί, Matt. vi. 24, ete. 

The spelling τέσσερες, τεσσεράκοντα is probably hardly 


NUMERALS. 29 


to be called an Ionism, but. rests merely on an erroneous usage 
of the Alexandrian period. For we never find the inflections 
τεσσέρων, -epot, as these cases run in Ionic, but invariably 
(even in cod. Alex.) τεσσάρων, τέσσαρσι, 6.5. Acts x. 11; Rev. 


xxi. 17 (τεσσεράκοντα τεσσάρων). Since, however, the forms 


with e have been transmitted principally by the above codex, 
whence they have often found their way into the O. T. (see 
Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 118), Lachmann, following the au- 
thority of cod. Vat., has adopted. them but sparingly, e.g. Acts 
i. 3; 2 Cor. xi. 24, and almost always in the Apocalypse. 
Tischendorf [cf. ed. 7, p. il] has them more frequently, — 
in particular τεσσεράκοντα throughout [so Treg. ] and the neuter 
Técoepa,—but otherwise τέσσαρες, -as, τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατος. 
To maintain consistency throughout is not advisable, since it 
is certain that both modes of spelling were in use, but it is 
best everywhere to follow the mss. Compare besides the form 
(received by Lchm.) κεκαθερισμένος for κεκαθαρ. in Heb. 
x, 2, and ἐκαθερίσθη in Tdf’s. last. ed. Matt. viii.3; Mark i. 42, 
ἐκαθέρισεν Acts x. 15 Tdf. [ed.7; Treg.], μιερός for μιαρός Barn. 
Act.19, p.71ed.Tdf. [In Rev. xxi.17 Treg. prints τεσσαράκοντα]. 

The rule of certain ancient grammarians relative to the 
accent of the compounds of ἔτος (Etym. Magn. τριέτης μὲν 
χρόνος, τριετὴς δὲ παῖς, cf. Winer p. 50 (49)) has been observed 
in the N.-T. by Lchm.; hence τεσσερακονταέτης χρόνος Acts 
vii. 23; xiii. 18, but ἑκατονταετής sc. ἀνήρ Rom. iv. 19 (-érns 
Tdf.). In the Rec. the rule was reversed; [Treg. accents 
the last syllable in every instance]. On the disagreement 
among the old grammarians. see. Schol. ad Il. yr. 266, and οἵ. 
Lehrs, quaest. epp. pp. 180, 147. 


ORDINAL, AND OTHER DERIVATIVE NUMBERS. 
B. § 71, 1; H.§256; C. $240; D. 8 268, Obs. 1d.; J. § 165, 8. 

As a later form for teccapaxawéxatos, and one peculiar to 
the N. T., τεσσαρες καιδέκατος is to be noticed: Acts xxvii. 
27,53. Cf. the Ionic cardinal number Β. ὃ 70. 

The cardinal eis takes. the place in one case of the ordinal 
πρῶτος (cf. B. p. 92 note 7). namely, in the common. phrase 
ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων i.e. the first day of the week (see p. 23); 
as, Mark xvi. 2 (on the other hand, in vs. 9 πρώτῃ o.) Acts 
xx. 7, etc. Matt. xxviii. 1 also, where the article is wanting, 
is nevertheless to be understood like the other passages; cf. 


26 


27 


80 ORDINAL, AND OTHER DERIVATIVE NUMBERS. 


Rev. ix. 11 ἡ ovat ἡ μία with xi. 14. This use is borrowed 
from the Hebrew (see Wahl under εἷς, or Gesen. under smx), 
hence it is to be found frequently in the Sept. also, e.g. ἐν 
ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ τοῦ μηνός Exod. xl. 2; Ezra x. 16, ete. Corres- 
ponding to ris for πότερος (B. § 78, 2) is the use of εἷς or ὁ εἷς 
in the sense of alter, ὁ ἕτερος ; see Wahl. 

In 2 Pet. ii. 5 the ordinal number is used peculiarly, (having 
the force of the German selb-); thus ὄγδοον Nae Noah with 
seven others. Cf. αὐτὸς πέμπτος (B. ὃ 127, N. 2; H. 8 669; 
C. § 541¢.; Ὁ. p. 462; J § 656f.). 

In compound numeral adverbs it is sufficient if the adverbial 
form occurs but once; as, Matt. xviii. 22 ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά. 

Distributive numerals are destitute of a special adjective- 
form in Greek. In the N. T. accordingly they are sometimes, 
as in other Greek authors, expressed by adverbial con- 
structions, as ἀνὰ δύο Luke ix. 3 (see § 147 under ἀνά, 
p. 331), οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα, κατὰ δύο, singuli, bint Eph. v. 33; 1 Cor. 
xiv. 27 (see § 147 under xara, p. 835). In this case the 
combination (unknown to classic Greek) deserves notice, by 
virtue of which εἷς is treated like an indeclinable numeral, or 
the preposition as a species of adverb, particularly in the for- 
mula εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς Mark xiv. 19 [Tdf. κατὰ]; John viii. 9 (Rev. 
iv. ὃ ὃν καθ᾽ &), and cf. Rom. xii. 5 τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς for εἷς ἕκαστος, 
Rey. xxi. 21 ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος. Sometimes distributives are 
expressed by repeating the cardinal numeral, as is done 
in Hebrew (see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 703; Gr. § 118, 5), e.g. δύο 
δύο Mark vi. 7 with which the analogous expressions in 39, 40 
συμπόσια συμπόσια, πρασιαί πρασιαί may be compared (Gesen. 
Lehrg. p. 669; Gr. § 106, 4). 

Β. § 71, 8; H. § 258; C. § 240, 5; D. § 256; J. $161, δ. 

The Multiplicative numerals are formed: in the parable 
of the Sower (uke viii. 8) by means of -πλασίων, ---- a termina- 
tion which in later writers came into frequent use (see Lob. 
Phryn. p. 411 note), καρπὸν ἑκατονταπλασίονα (like πολλαπλα- 
olwv Luke xviii. 80 ; see Pape, and cf. Xen. Oee. ii. 8 ἑκατοντα- 
πλασίονα) ; in Mark iv. 8 by circumlocution with a preposition, 
after the manner of distributives, as eis τριάκοντα, eis ἑκατόν 3; 
finally in Matt. xiii. 8, 23 by the simple cardinal. 


1 This, at least, is that one of the ancient readings which Tischendorf [so Treg.] 
has followed. As respects the other (Lchm. Grsb. ete.) see Syntax § 126, 3 p.13. 


PRONOUNS. 31 


Pronouns. 
B. § 72; H. § 230; C. ὃ 248 5ᾳ.; D. § 282; J. $149, 1. 
The reflexive forms of the 3d Pers. Sing. and Plur. (οὗ, etc.) 
have passed quite out of use in the language of the N.T. On 
ἑαυτοῦ, (avTod), αὐτοῦ, etc. see below, Syntax § 127, 14 p. 111. 


B. § 72, N. 8; H. $282; C. § 788 e.; D. ὃ δ (ο); J. 8 64, 8a. 

The inclination of the accent in πρός pe has been adhered 
to by the editors of the N. T., as in Matt. iii. 14, etc. And 
Lehm. accents also the 2d Pers. in the same way when no 
especial emphasis rests on the Pronoun, as πρός σε Matt. xiv. 28; 
xxv. 39; Mark ix.17,etce. On the other hand, in John xxi. 22 
τί πρὸς σέ; Matt. xxvi. 18 πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα. With other 
prepositions the pronoun is always orthotone ; as, ἐν ἐμοί, ἐν σοί, 
ἐπὶ σέ, etc.; see the rule of the old grammarians in Herm. de 
emend. rat. p. 75. The accentuation πρὸς μέ often employed 
by Tdf. is uniformly to be rejected. 


ἀντός ; THE REFLEXIVE Pronoun; THE RECIPROCAL. 
Β. § 74; H. § 2845q.; C. § 244; 1). § 284 8q.; J. § 150 sq. 

Respecting the N. T. use of αὐτός as well as of the reflexive 
pronoun ἐμαυτοῦ, etc., see the Syntax ὃ 127, p. 107 sqq. 

Though the use of the reciprocal pronoun ἀλλήλων is quite 
current in the N.T., yet the circumlocution by means of the 
numeral εἷς is also found, but only in isolated cases: 1 Thess. 
v. 11 οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα (interchanged with ἀλλήλους) ; cf. 
1 Cor. iv. 6 ἵνα μὴ εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου. 
This use is not ἃ Hebraism, see Winer, p. 173 (163), and ef. 
§ 126, 3 p. 102. 

tls, τὶς. 
B. § ΤΊ; H. $244; C. $258; D. §240; J. 5 166. 

The secondary forms of τίς and tis are quite dakaows to 

the N. T.; the Gen ὅτου. of the compound ὅστις occurs, indeed, 


but only Ξ the conjunctional phrase ἕως ὅτου Matt. v. 25, ete. 


The un-Attic (and poetic) μήτις for μηδείς occurs 1 Cor. xvi. 11. 


CoRRELATIVES. 
B. 8 78, 2; H. $247; C. $63; J. § 874, Obs. 4. 

The distinction between τίς and πότερος, which was some- 
times neglected even by the Greeks (like the use of qwis and 
uter by the Romans), seems to be wholly disregarded by the 
writers of the N. T.; for the form πότερος occurs but once and 


28 


29 


32 SYLLABIC. AUGMENT. 


in the double conjunction πότερον ... ἤ (John vii. 17), while 
everywhere else τίς is used, even where there is the plainest 
reference to two, as Matt. xxi. 81 τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν. 
See Wahl under τίς, and cf. B. ὃ 71,1. An analogy to this is 
offered by the obliteration of the difference between πρότερος 
and πρῶτος, -ov (although the Latins in translating still observe 
it in numerous instances), and likewise between ἄλλος and 
ἕτερος. For example, Heb. viii. 7 εἰ yap ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη (Vulg. 
illud priws sc. testamentum) ἦν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζη- 
τεῖτο τόπος, John xx. 4 ἔτρεχον οἱ δύο ὁμοῦ" ὁ δὲ ἄλλος μαθητὴς 
ἦλθεν πρῶτος (prior ἃ, Ὁ, ο, d,) εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον. Hence πρῶτος 
is even connected with the Gen. compar. (John i. 15, 80), 
respecting which see Syntax § 123, 14 p. 84. 


THE VERB. 
SyLLaBic AUGMENT. 
B. § 88, 2; H. § 48; C. $277 sq.; Ὁ. § 805; J. §171, and Obs. 6. 

The doubling of p after the augment, which, as is well known, 
was omitted only by the poets on account of the verse (B. ὃ 
21, N. 2) has sometimes been neglected also in the N. T. 
Although double letters are often written singly in the Mss. 
yet the doubling of p in most verbs is never, or only in ex- 
tremely rare instances, omitted; accordingly we find ἔρριψα, 
éppnéa, etc. Hesitation, therefore, has justly been felt at 
making arbitrary alterations in those verbs in which the best 
codices sustain almost unanimously the single p. They are 
Matt. xxvi. 67 ἐράπισαν, Acts xvi. 22 περιρήξαντες (codd. Vat. 
and Sin.), 2 Cor. xi. 25 ἐραβδίσθην, Heb. ix. 19 ἐράντισε (cf. 
below, p. 33), 2 Tim. iii. 11; iv. 17 ἐρύσατο, ἐρύσθη, ---- (on the 
other hand, ἐρρύσατο 2 Cor. i. 10; Col. i. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 7). 
According to the analogy of these examples the cod. Alex. 
[Sin. also] (and Tdf. [so Treg.]) writes in John xix. 23 ἄραφος 
instead of dppados; and so frequently in composition after 
prepositions, as διαρήσσων Luke viii. 29, ἐπιρίψαντες xix. 35; 
1 Pet. v. 7; cf. Mark ii. 21; Luke v. 6; Acts xvi. 22, etc. 


B. 8.88, N. 1; H. § 319 b.; C. $280 b.; Ὁ. p. 195; J. § 175, Obs. 1. 

The former reading μεμνηστευμένη Luke i. 27; ii. 5 is now set 
aside on the authority of Mss.; yet it is often found in the N. T. 
Apocrypha, and elsewhere also, e.g. in Diodor. (18. 23); see Lob. 
Parall. p. 10 sq. 


TEMPORAL AUGMENT. 33 


B. 8.88, N. 4; H. 8 819; ©. 8 169 6.; Ὁ. ὃ 805 b) Obs.; J. $176, 1. 

The Homeric ῥερυπωμένα finds now two parallels in the text 
of the N.T., viz. ρεριμμένον Matt. ix. 86 (Lchm. after cod. D, 
ἐριμμ. Tdf. [Treg.]) and ρεραντισμένοι Heb. x. 22 (accord- 
ing to codd. [x] AC). Similar instances in later authors are 
adduced by Lobeck, Parall. p. 18. As respects the aspiration 
of the first p, Lchm. has in both cases [so Treg. in Heb.] given 
the smooth breathing, see Ausf. Sprachl. § 6 Anm. 8 Note, and 
Lobeck as above, who besides puts a breathing over the second 
p, as ῥέῥιμμαι. But as the opinions of the old grammarians do 
not quite favor the adoption of this, Géttling (on Theodos. p. 
213 and Acc. p. 205) advocates the retention of the rough 
breathing on the first p, except in words of Aeolic origin ; and 
this is done by most editors. Cf. Steph. Byz. p. 543 Mein. 


B. § 88, N.5; H. § 808 a.; ©. ὃ 279; D. ὃ 805 (ἢ); J. §171, Obs. 1.; Taf. ed. 7, p. lvi. 

With μέλλω and δύναμαι in the N. T. both kinds of aug- 
ment are used promiscuously ; as, ἤμελλεν John iv. 47, ἔμελλεν 
vi. 71, ἠδύνατο Matt. xxvi. 9, ἐδύναντο Mark iv. 33. . But with 
βούλομαι the text of Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. apparently] always 
gives the simple augment: Impf. ἐβουλόμην Acts xv. 37; 
xxvilil. 18; Philem. 13; Aor. ἐβουλήθην 2 John 12; on the 
other hand, the Aorist of δύναμαι is always ἠδυνήθην [-ἄσθην 
Tdf. in Mark vii. 24 after x B], as in Matt. xvii. 16,19; 1 Cor. 
ili, 1, etc. Cf. besides, the anomalous ἐθέλω. 


B. § 83, N.7; H. 8.811; C.284¢.; D. 8.811; J. §171, Obs. 4; Taf. Le. 

The omission of the syllabic augment of the Pluperfect takes 
place, though not invariably (e.g. Luke xvi. 20; John ix. 22), 
yet in the majority of cases; hence πεποιήκεισαν, ἐκβεβλήκει, 
γεγόνει Mark xv. 7,10; Luke vi. 48. etc. See other examples 
in Winer § 12,9 p. 72 (70). 

TEMPORAL AUGMENT. 
B. § 84,2; H. § 812; C. § 278; Ὁ. 8 805, Obs. 2; J. $173, 7; Taf. Lc. 

With ἐργάζομαι the augment ev is the common one in the 
N. T. also; yet the other augment (7) has been received into 
the text on preponderant authority in Acts xviii. 3; Luke xix. 
16 [Treg. «-]. In the other passages it is commonly found as 
a noteworthy variant (particularly in codd. Cant. and Clarom.) 30 
[and adopted by Tdf.], as in Matt. xxv. 16 [Sin. also] ; xxvi. 
10 [Sin. also] ; Rom. vii. 8; 2 Cor. x‘i. 12. 

5 


34 TEMPORAL AUGMENT. 


The reading of the Rec. in Rev. vi. 14 εἱλισσόμενος is now 
set aside. 

On the other hand, the number of the verbs that take the 
augment ev is increased in the N. T. by one, viz. ἑλκόω, Perf. 
Pass. Part. εἱλκωμένος Luke xvi. 20. 


B. § 84, 5; H. § 810; C. § 218 d.; D. § 806 (2); J. § 173, 2; Tdf. 1. ὁ. 

Verbs beginning with ed have now ev, now nv; and in fact, 
both kinds of augment alternately: εὐκαιρέω Mark vi. 31; 
Acts xvii. 21, εὐλογέω Luke ii. 34; Heb. xi. 20, 21, εὐφραΐίνω 
Acts ii. 26; vii. 41, εὐχαριστέω Acts xxvii. 35; Rom. i. 21, 
εὑρίσκω in the Imperf. Acts vii. 11; Luke xix.48; Heb. xi. 5. 

On the other hand, εὖ alone is used in the other tenses of 
εὑρίσκω, as εὗρον, εὕρηκα, εὑρέθην, also in evdoxéw (yet not 
without variants, see Col. i. 19), and in the following verbs, 
which occur but once in augmented forms: εὐθυδρομέω Acts 
xvi. 11, εὐνουχίζω Matt. xix. 12; εὐπορέω Acts xi. 29. 

But εὔχομαι has everywhere only ηὐ-, as ηὐχόμην Rom. ix. 3; 
ηὔχοντο Acts xxvii. 29 [εὔ- Tdf. Treg.]; προςηύχετο, προςηύξαντο 
viii. 15; Luke xviii. 11; Jas. v. 17,18, and in the case of 
evpopéw, Luke xii. 16, the Mss. are divided (Lchm. ηὐφόρησεν, 
[ev- 8 Tdf. Treg.]). Cf. further below, p. 88. 


B. 8.84, N. 8; H. § 309 D.; C. $284b.; D. p. 201; J. § 174, 8. 

Neglect of the temporal augment, after the manner of the 
Ionians, occurs in the N. T. but very rarely. Thus the mss. 
sustain ἐπαισχύνθη [ἐπῃ- δὲ] 2 Tim. i. 16 (on the other hand, 
it is regular in 2 Cor. vii. 14), διερμήνευεν Luke xxiv. 27; 
there is preponderant authority also for ἀνορθώθη [x ἀνωρ-] 
Luke xiii. 13; further, for προορώμην Acts ii. 25, and ὁμοιώθημεν 
[o- x Tdf. Treg.] Rom. ix. 29,— both in quotations from the 
O. T. (the latter, indeed, not taken into the text by Lchm., but 
placed on an equality with the reading adopted); also for 
οἰκοδόμησεν Acts vii. 47 Tdf. [ed. 2; Treg.] cf. Luke vii. 5 var. 
[in John ii. 20 Ταῦ, now reads οἰκοδομήθη], ἐποικοδόμησεν 
1 Cor. iii. 14 Tdf. [Treg.] (on the forms of the Aug. of this 
verb see Tdf.’s crit. com. on Acts vii. 47), ὁμολόγησεν Acts Vii. 
17 (Sin.), Sveyedpero John vi. 18 (Vat. [Treg.]). See more 
examples of the kind from the Sept. in Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 124, 


The reading περιέστραψεν Acts ix. 3 Lehm., as if formed from 
περιστράπτω, may be noticed as an anomaly quite isolated. It is an 


ΡΣ 


THE AUGMENT IN COMPOSITION. 35 


instance of carelessness, which zn such a writer as Luke is probably to 
be charged only to the transcribers, since in another passage (xxii. 6) 
of the same author the Inf. Aor. runs περιαστράψαι. Tdf. accordingly 
has not adopted it; see the various readings, and Steph. Thes. sub 
voce στράπτω. 
THe AUGMENT IN COMPOSITION. 
B. § 86,3; H. $316; C. 8.282; Ὁ. 8.810; J. § 180, 2. 

Of the verbs belonging under this head evayyeAl fm (also 
mpoevayy. Gal. iii. 8) always has the augment in the middle, 
also in 1 Cor. xv. 2, see Wahl. On the other hand, the Perf. 
Inf. of εὐαρεστέω is now read after cod. A without augment, 
εὐαρεστηκέναι, in Heb. xi. 5 [δὲ εὐη-]. 


B. $86, N. 8; H. $815; Ὁ. $308, Obs. 2; J. § 181, 6. 

Agreeably to the general rule, προφητεύω in the N.T. has 
its augment at the beginning: ἐπροφήτευον, -cav, etc. (see 
Wahl); yet everywhere with the variant προεφήτευον, ete. 
(especially in the Vat. cod., which the Rec. followed). Only 
once, Jude 14, has the text of Lchm. (not Tdf. [Treg.]) the 
augment in the middle. [Cf. Grimm’s Lex. sub voce.] 


Β. 886, N. 4; H. 8.814; C. § 279 b.; D. p. 200; J. § 181. | 

The number of examples of a twofold augment can be 
increased from the N. T. Thus throughout we find ἀπεκα- 
τεστάθη Matt. xii.13 etc.[so ἀπεκατέστη Mark viii. 25 Tdf.Treg. ], 
and ἠνεῴχθησαν, see the anom. οἴγω p. 63. On the other hand, 
ἀνέχομαι and διακονέω have the simple augment: ἀνείχεσθε 
2 Cor. xi. 1 (and 4 Tdf. [Treg.]) ἀνεσχόμην Acts xviii. 14 Lehm. 
[Tdf. Treg.], διηκόνουν -noa frequently. On the double aug- 
ment see Poppo on Thue. 4, 180; and on this (common) 
διηκόνουν cf. An. Bekk. p. 1285; Moeris sub voce. Respecting 
ἀνορθόω see p. 84. (Cf. besides Ps. xlviii. 18, 21 cod. Alex.) 


Future SuBJUNCTIVE. 
B. § 88, 1; H. § 262; C. § 269 Ὁ. 


From the N. T. a number of examples of the Subjunctiva 
form of the Future are adduced. In very late Greek, like 
that of the Byzantine writers and Scholiasts and N. T. Apoc- 
rypha (which swarm with similar anomalies), forms of this 
sort (ἔσωνται, ἐλεύσωνται) are not to be denied ; but, according 
to Lobeck’s judgment (Phryn. p. 721), in the earlier authors 
down to the κοινοί they are to be charged wholly to the copyists, 


31 


32 


36 FUTURE SUBJUNCTIVE. 


whose ear had already become accustomed “Ὁ such hallf- 
barbarous forms (ib. 720). How far back, however, the 
beginnings of this usage are to be carried, would be hard to 
decide. A basis for-it is offered by μεμισθώσωνται in the 
Tabul. Heracl. (cf. Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 384). Respecting 
the usage of the N. T. authors, Lobeck, indeed, does not 
generally express himself; yet on the whole he seems to be 
opposed to the admission of such subjunctives even in the N.T, 
(p. 722). In point of fact, too, recent criticism has done 
away with most of the instances (cited by Winer p. 75 (72)): 
e.g. 1 Pet. ili. 1 κερδηθήσονται, Rev. xviii. 14 εὑρήσουσιν (εὕρῃς 
Ταῦ, [eds. 2,7], εὑρήσῃς Rec.). Also the first of the examples 
adduced there (1 Cor. xiii. 3 cav0jc@pav) has been set aside by 
Tdf. yet is still admitted by Lchm. [Treg.]; but the reading is 
altogether uncertain (the three leading mss. have καυχήσωμαι). 
Cf. Lob. p. 722. The reading of the received text in Luke 
xiii. 35 HE for ἥξει Lehm. Tdf. ean likewise be referred to 
this head. Jeon, which in John xvii. 2, owing to its strong 
support, can hardly be got rid of (although even in the Rev. 
it has yielded to the forms dace and δῶσεν, vill. 3; xiii. 16), 
may, if established, still be looked upon as an (erroneous) 
Aorist Subjunctive form, which in later times became more 
and more prevalent in the mouth of the people; (some of the 
modern Greeks still say ἔδωσα). See the numerous forms 
of the kind from δίδωμι and τέθημι in Lobeck as above, also in 
Cobet’s Nov. Lect. 266; Var. Lect. 96. ‘Lhe same holds geod 
of the clearly poansanitaall Subj. ὄψησθε in Luke xiii. 28 (Td, 
Treg. read ὄψεσθε, with codd. B D etc.}, formed from the else 
where unused theme ὄπτω and the Aorist ὠψάμην which 
actually occurs here and there. See in particular Plat. legg. 
p- 947 ο., and οἵ, Ausf. Sprachi. under ὁράω. 


CHARACTERISTIC. 
Β. § 92, Ν. 8; H. ὃ 828 b.; C. $349. 

Στηρίζω has commonly, in accordance with the rule, ornpig, 
ἐστήρικται, στηριχθῆναι; but the Aor. Imperat. is always στή- 
ρισον Luke xxii. 82; Rev. iii. 2 (likewise Ezek. vi. 2), and. 
besides, in cod. Vat. the same inflection is found also in Luke 
ix. 51 ἐστήρισε [so Tdf. Treg.], 2 Thess. iii. 3 στηρίσει (not 
in Lehm. [Treg.]). Hence the Perf. ἐστήρικα (not ἐστήριχα 
Jer. xxi. 10) and Fut. στηριῶ in the Sept 


THE FUTURE. 97 


Moreover σαλπίζω, though σάλπυγξ (var. σάλπιξ) -γγος Rev. 
i. 10 etc. comes from it, invariably has the forms σαλπίσει, 
ἐσάλπισεν Matt. vi. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 52 (and often in Rev., see 
Wahl), and likewise the subst. σαλπιστής instead of σαλπιγκτής 
Rev. xviii. 22. 

Tue FUTURE. 
B. $95, H. $872saq.; C. § 805; D. § 802; J. § 208. 

In the N. T. (as generally in later Greek, see Ausf. Sprachl. 
II. 315) φορέω (φορέσω) ἐφόρεσα 1 Cor. xv. 49 (Sir. xi. 5) 
belongs also to those verbs in é which in inflection do not 
lengthen the e. | 

Respecting ἐπαινέσω see p. 53. 

Contrary to rule, wewdw has uniformly Fut. πεινάσω, Aor. 
ἐπείνασα: Matt. xii. 1, 3, etc. See Lob. Phryn. p. 204. 

The so-called Attic Future of verbs in (fw is quite usual in 
the N. T. Yet not from all these verbs; but, so far as can be 
gathered from existing evidence, a portion of them have ex- 
clusively the Attic Future, others the ordinary Future, still 
others both. By far the greater number, however, do not 
occur in the Future, and it is not always safe to draw an 
inference from the usage of the Sept. or of later authors re- 
specting that of the N.T. The Attic Future forms in the N. T. 
(in part quotations from the O. T.) are the following: ἀφοριεῖ, 
«ἰοῦσιν Matt. xiii. 49; xxv. 32, ἐλπιοῦσιν Matt. xii. 21; Rom. 
xv. 12, παροργιῶ Rom. x. 19, καθαριεῖ Matt. iii. 12; Heb. ix. 
14 etc., ἐδαφιοῦσιν Luke xix. 44, μακαριοῦσιν i. 48, μετοικιῶ 
Acts vii. 48, ἐγγιεῖ Jas. iv. 8, χρονιεῖ Heb. x. 387, and in the 
O. T. there are many more of them. The following, on the 
other hand, have the Future in cw: γνωρίζω, jnvariably, John 
xvii. 26, ete., also Col. iv. 9 (where Tdf. [Treg.] and the Rec. 
read γνωριοῦσιν after [x] A C), θερίζω 1 Cor. ix. 11; Gal. vi. 
T etc., ἐμφανέζω John xiv. 21, ἐρίζω Matt. xii. 19, καθίζω Matt. 
xix. 28; xxv. 31, καταρτίζω 1 Pet. v. 10, μετασχηματίζω Phil. 
iii. 21, σχίζω Luke v. 36, χαρίζομαι Rom. viii. 32, χρηματίζω 
vii. 3, χωρίζω viii. 85, and ῥαπίζω Matt. v. 89 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]. 
But ἐξυπνίσω John xi. 11, cxavdaricw 1 Cor. vill. 13, are Aor. 
Subjunctives. Κομίζομαι has both forms: 1 Pet.v.4; 2 Pet. 
ii. 18 (-voduar), Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 25 (-cowar) ; this may 
have occurred often, as well as in the O. T., e.g. ποτιῶ Num. 
v. 24, 26; Sir. xxiv. 31, ποτίσω Sir. xv. ὃ. 


98 


84 


98 THE FUTURE. 


Respecting στηρίζω and σαλπίξζω see above, p. 80 sq. 


B. § 95, N. 18. 

As proof of the statement that the N. T. writers give the Attic form 
of the Future even to such verbs as lengthen the vowel, several 
passages are cited with more or less reason (see Fisch. ad Well. 11. 
p- 359). After the rejection of those passages in which formerly a 
Future was erroneously supposed to be discovered (τί ποιῶ, etc.), the 
following have perhaps the greatest probability of such a use in their 
favor: Matt. xxvi. 18 ποιῶ, Luke xiii. 32 τελειοῦμαι, Luke xii. 20 
ἀπαιτοῦσιν; ἴῃ particular, Matt. xii. 25 ἐρημοῦται and John xiv. 19; xvi. 
16, 17 θεωρεῖ, θεωρεῖτε, since indubitable Futures (σταθήσεται, ὄψεσθε, 
etc.) correspond to them both before and afterwards. The supposition 
is opposed by (1) Its complete irregularity ; (2) The entire silence of 
the ancient grammarians, since, had the usage actually found place in 
the language, it is hardly credible that they should not on any occasion 
have taken notice of it; (3) The extraordinary circumstance that, if 
this form of the Future was possible, the examples of it are so uncom- 
monly rare, although the opportunity of employing it was so frequent, 
while yet the use of the Attic Future of those verbs that can form it 
regularly occurred so very extensively; finally (4) The fact that the 
Vulgate in translating the form employs almost always the Present ; 
which, on the other supposition, would hardly have been done where 
the temptation to use the Future lay so close at hand as e.g. in Matt. 
xxvi. 18. Only ἐρημοῦται does it translate by desolabitur and θεωρεῖτε 
by videbitis, probably on account of the other Future forms which 
follow.' Hence the admission of this anomalous Attic Future is un- 
warranted even in the language of the N. T., and such Futures are to 
be explained syntactically as Presents in which the future signification 
is included (§ 137, 10 p. 203). By this, however, it is not meant at 
all to deny, that the N. T. writers, affected by their frequent use of 
the Attic Futures were the more easily led to employ in pure verbs 
the Present instead of the Future, inasmuch as the feeling which 
demands the Future was in some measure satisfied by the circumflexed 
form. Cf. τί ποιοῦμεν (quid factemus) John xi. 47. 

On γεννᾶται Matt. ii. 4 see Fritzsche on the passage, and below 
§ 137, 9 p. 208. 


1 The other (Ital.) versions have some of them the Future in the other passages 
also. But that this warrants an inference respecting the sense only, in no wise 
respecting the form, is satisfactorily shown by the circumstance that they translate 
other indubitable Presents also (leaving out of sight ἔρχομαι, ἐρχόμενος, see p. 58), 
such as ywdéoretat, ἀναβαίνω, δύναται (Luke vi. 44; John vii. 8; Matt. xix. 25) © 
by the Future, Cf. Lachmann’s preface (Ph. Bttm.’s coroll.) p. 50. 


ALEXANDRIAN AORIST. 89 


ALEXANDRIAN AORIST. 
B. 890, N. 1; C. § 827; J. §192,8; Tdf. ed. 7, p. lvi; Scrivener’s N. J. Crit. p. 416 


Numerous examples from the O. T. of the Alexandrian 
Aorist in ὦ with the ckaracteristic of the 2d Aor. are given in 
Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 60 sq., and from the N. T. in Winer § 18, 
1,a. p. 73 (71). Moreover, it is to be particularly noticed 
that both Aorist forms are constantly found in use by the same 
writer, often in close proximity (e.g. Matt. xxii. 22 sq. ἀπῆλθαν 
... προςζῆλθον, Acts xxviii. 13 sqq. ἤλθομεν... ἤλθαμεν ... ἦλθον, 
xii. 10, etc.). This phenomenon is no more surprising than 
the simultaneous use by the Attics of the two Aorists εἶπον 
and εἶπα, ἤνεγκον and ἤνεγκα, formed after the same analogy. 
Accordingly, it is a very uncritical procedure (of which the 
Rec. has sometimes been guilty) to undertake by correction 
to carry through consistently the one form or the other in any 
writer ; but here if anywhere the authority of the greater num- 
ber of good mss. alone should decide in every particular case. 
To be sure, the editors often arrive in this matter at different 
results, according as they give this class of mss. or that the - 
preference, (the cod. Alex., particularly, has the Alexandrian 
form in such cases). Yet in general it will be found that in 
the instances belonging here the Alexandrian forms occur 
most frequently in the Ist Pers. Sing., the Plural throughout, 
and the inflected forms of the Imperative ; but never m the 
Infin. and Partic. Active (seldom in the Middle). Cf. with 
this the somewhat variable use of the two Aorists in the anom- 
alous φέρω and εἰπεῖν. For an example from the Sept. of the 
2d Pers. Sing. see 2 Sam. iii. 34 ἔπεσας. 

Thus in the N. T. we find used promiscuously the forms 
ἦλθον -ομεν -ετε, ἐλθέτω, and ἦλθαν etc. (the Ist Pers. ἦλθα is 
found only in Rev. x. 9), εἶδον and εἶδαν (John i. 40; Acts xii. 
16 etc., εἴδαμεν in Acts iv. 20), but εἶδον always in the 1st 
Pers. almost without a single variant;! ἔπεσον [-cav Tdf. 


ΤῸ is surprising that in the Apocalypse, amid the uncommonly numerous 
instances of the Ist Pers. Sing. εἶδον, nevertheless in one passage εἶδα is twice 
given (xvii. 3, 6) ; so that we are probably justified in attributing the form rather 
to the scribe of cod. A, which here is almost the sole authority [so T., Tr., N in vs. 6]. 
It may be further noticed that Tdf. [ed. 7; cf. Prol. p. lii] in the Apocalypse has 
everywhere [‘ plerumque’] adopted the Zorms ἴδον, and ta, which often occur in the 
Sept. [cf. Tdf.’s ed Prol. § 28, p. Ixxiii ed. 4]. In other books they seldom occur 
in the ss., see e.g. Mark xvi. 5 var.; Luke ii. 20 [Tdf.]. 


BO 


40 THIRD FUTURE. 


Treg.] Mark vi. 40 etc., and ἔπεσαν} Acts xii. T etc., also Ist 
Pers. ἔπεσα Acts xxii. T; Rev. i. 17, etc. and in the Sept. ; 
πέσετε Luke xxiii. 30 [are Ταῦ, Treg.] and πέσατε Rev. vi. 16, 
ἐξεπέσατε Gal. v. 4; εὗρον -ομὲν and εὗραν Luke ii. 10 Tdf. 
[ Treg. ], εὑράμενος Heb. ix.12. In the Middle αἱρεῖσθαι the 
Aor. εἱλάμην, εἵλατο has (except in the Partic. and Infin. Heb. 
xi. 25; Acts vii. 834) wholly supplanted the other: Acts vil. 
10, 21; xii. 11; xxiii. 27; 2 Thess. ii. 13, (in the Active 
aveinate Acts ii. 23, ἀνεῖλαν x. 89). 

Other forms, like ἔφυγαν, ἔλαβαν, éhaBapev, ἔβαλαν, ἐφάγα- 
μεν, ἔφαναν, belong for the most part only to the O. T., yet are 
found also in the mss. of the N. T. and here and there in 
modern texts, e.g. Luke v. 5 (A); Acts xxi. 27 (A [x, Tdf. 
Treg.]); Mark xii. ὃ (B); Acts xvi. 87; Rev. xviii. 19 Lehm. 
Ταῦ, [ed. 7]. But the Imperfect form εἶχαν Mark viii. 7 (Rev. 
ix. 8), παρεῖχαν Acts xxviii. 2, is wholly without analogy, 
although the editors have adopted it into the text because sus- 
tained by the testimony of the leading codices A and B (and x 
also). Inthe N. T. Apocrypha forms of the sort become more 
and more numerous. 

Β. § 96, N. 2. 

In the Active voice κρύπτω has commonly the Ist Aor., in 
the Passive the 2d; yet once it has also the 2d Aor. Active 
ἔκρυβον Luke i. 24 — [according to Sophocles, Gram. an Im- 
perfect ; cf. 2 Kings xi. 3; Soph. Lex. sub κρύβω; Lob. Phryn. 
p- 817]. See B. ὃ 92, Note 2, foot-note p. 122. 


TuirD FurTuRe. 
Β. § 99; H. § 894; C. $819. 

The Third Fut. (Passive), seldom used even by the Greeks 
in its peculiar force as a Paulopost Future and Future Perfect, 
belongs to the more delicate and artificial products of the 
Greek tongue. In the N. T., therefore, it no longer appears. 
On κεκράξομαι see the anomalous κράζω p. 61. 


1 In Matt. vii. 25 also the mss. [δὲ also] give mposérecay, out of which Lehm., 
on account of the Latin translation and taking into consideration the frequent 
interchange of ε and αἱ (see e.g. avareoa for avamece Luke xiv. 10; xvii. 7 [Tdf. 
ed. 7, p. lvi], payee ib. 8, γυνεκαις 1 Cor. xiv. 34, and the still more uncouth 
αισθειεται for ἐσθίετε 1 Cor. x. 25 cod. G), thought he must make mposémauoay. 
Yet considering the rarity of the word mposratw (it occurs nowhere else in the 
N. T., and in the O.T. also, as well as in other authors, its existence is almost 
doubtful, see Stephanus sub voce; the usual word is rposrratw) Tdf. [so Treg.] 
has with reason given the preference to the ms. reading. Cf. besides the anom- 
alous πίπτω, p. 67. 


ἤν 


VERBS IN Aypyop. 41 


VERBS IN Apvo. 
B. $101; H. § 345; C. $152; J. § 222. 

Examples from the N. T. of the later formation in a from 
verbs in -aivw, -aipw are, σημᾶναι Acts xi. 28; xxv. 27; Rev. 
i. 1, ποιμάνατε 1 Pet. v. 2, ἐκκαθάρῃ 2 Tim. ii. 21, ἐβάσκανεν 
Gal. iii. 1 and even ἐπιφᾶναι Luke i. 79; thence the Subjunc. 
φάνῃ (Rec. φαίνῃ or φανῇ [Tr.}) Rev. viii. 12; xvili.23. Cf. the 
extended discussion in Lob. ad Phryn. p. 25. The spelling 
σημᾶναι, καθᾶραι in earlier authors (e.g. Xen. Hell. 1, 1, 2; 
Oec. 18, 8, etc.) probably arose only through later copyists. 
See Poppo and Dind. on Cyr. 4, 5, 86. 

᾿Αποκτείνω uniformly retains the v in the 1st Aor. Passive ; 
thus, ἀπεκτάνθην Mark viii. 81, etc., see Winer ὃ 15, p. 83 (79). 
With κρίνω and κλίνω, however, this is never the ease. This 
usage holds good in the N. T. Of τείνω and πλύνω no Aor. 
Pass. forms occur. 

B. § 101, N. 7and 8; ©. ὃ 60. 

The Perfect Passive of μιαίνω, which in earlier authors 
(Plato, Thucyd.) is formed according to common analogy 
μεμίασμαι, is μεμίαμμαι in later writers (e.g. Dio C. p. 655, 
and cf. An. Cram. IV. p. 197); and this is. the form given by 
all the manuscripts in Titus i. 15. The form μεμίανται which 
occurs in the same passage may be taken (according to B. 8101, 
N.7) as 3d Pers. Plural; commonly it is explained as 3d Pers. 
Singular, like ἐξήρανται Mark xi. 21.1 This last-mentioned 
verb also has in the N. T. ἐξήραμμαι in the Ist Pers. Sing., 
ef. Mark iii. 1; xi. 20. 

VERBALS IN τός. 2 
B. 8102; Η. § 398; C. $269d.; Ὁ. p.190; J. $318. 

Verbals in tos take the accent on the last syllable, as γραπτός, 
γνωστός, ὁρατός, ἀγαπητός, φθαρτός, etc. When compounded, 

1 The Vulgate translates it inquinatae sunt. When. 6. Δα to this the express 
testimony of the scholiast on Arist. Plut. 635 (ἔχει δὲ τὸ. λελάμπρυνται τρίτον 
mpdswmov τῶν ἑνικῶν ὁμόφωνον τῷ τρίτῳ τῶν πληθυντικῶν, ὡς τὸ ἐξήρανται Kal 
κατήσχυνται καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα) and the other passages cited in the Ausf. Sprachl. 
I. 442, we can hardly regard the existence of the 3d Pers. Plural as so improbable 
as Schafer on Dion. H. de comp. verb. p. 355 asserts it to be; especially as to a 
Greck the ending -v7a: would naturally produce the impression of a plural. As 
further evidence towards establishing that form μεμίανται as plural, the quotation 
from an unknown poet in Suidas under ψαφαρῇ may serve: Ἕστασαν, οὐδὲ κόμας 
ψαφαρῇ. μεμίαντο κονίῃ, where μεμ. is manifestly plural, whether we read κόμας 
or with Valckenaer κόμαι. Hermann also (on Aesch. Pers. 569) takes the form 


ἔρρανται as 3d Pers. Plur. of the Perfect. 
6 


36 


BT 


49 REMARKS ON THE REGULAR VERB. 


however, they always draw back the accent if the composition 
first takes place in the Verbal; as, θεόπνευστος, δυσβάστακτος, 
εὔθετος, εὐπρόςδεκτος, εὔχρηστος, and all those compounded 
with a privative, the number of which is very great in the N. T., 
as ἄνυπτος, ἄφθαρτος, ἀπρόςιτος, ἀδιάκριτος, etc. On the other 
hand, if derived indubitably from verbs already compounded, 
they retain the accent on the last, as ἀνεκτός from ἀνέχομαι, 
εὐλογητός from εὐλογέω, ἐκλεκτός from ἐκλέγομαι, also συνεκλε- 
κτός, συνετός from συνίημι, etc. Those that do not do this 
must be regarded as first compounded in the Verbal, as ἀπόδε- 
κτος (simple δεκτός Luke iv. 19, etc.), σύμφυτος, ἔμφυτος, 
ἔκθετος, etc. 7 

Verbals in tos derived from intransitive verbs have also an 
Active (intransitive) sense, as θνητός, παθητός (Acts xxvVi. 
23), ἄπταιστος (Jude 24), dpeords, etc. See further respecting 
Verbals below, ὃ 134, 8, p. 190. On προςήλυτος see p. 74. 


REMARKS ON THE REGULAR VERB. 
B. p. 162; H. 8.849; ©. 8.298; D. p.179; J. § 194. 

Respecting the double form of the 1st Aor. Opt. Act. given 
in the paradigm, it may be remarked that in the 3d Pers. Sing. 
the form in a is the only one in use (hence probably in the 
3d Pers. Plur. more correctly ποιήσαιεν Luke vi. 11 Lehm. 
[Treg. Tdf.], ψηλαφήσαιεν Acts xvii. 27 var.), and in the 3d 
Pers. Plur. of the Imperative of all tenses the forms in -τωσαν 
and -σθωσαν. Examples of both verbal forms abound in all 
parts of the N. T., e.g. 1 Thess. iii. 11,12; Heb. xiii. 21; Jas. 
v.14; Rom. xv. 11; Luke xxi. 21, ete. 


B. p.162; H. § 363; C. 8 881; J. § 196. 7 

Instances of the form in σαν in the 2d Pers. Sing. of contract 
verbs —a form which indubitably occurs in the N. T., and is 
elsewhere also in use here and there, and is accordingly cen- 
sured by the Atticists and even the anti-Atticists (An. Bekk. 
II. 77, 98)—are the following: ὀδυνᾶσαι Luke xvi. 25, καυχᾶσαι, 
κατακαυχᾶσαι Rom. ii. 17, 23; xi. 18; 1Cor.iv.7. Elsewhere 
it appears only in the two Future forms πίεσαι and φάγεσαι ; 
see the anomalous πίνω p. 66, and ἐσθίω p. 58. 


B. p. 162; H. § 863a.; C. § 297 f.; J. § 196, Obs. 4. 
The 21 Pers. βούλει has been retained in the N. Τὶ CLuke 
xxii. 425, but the reading of the Rec. ὄψει is not found to be 


REMARKS ON THE REGULAR VERB. 48 


established by the codd.; hence recent editions have -ἢ, as 
generally in the 2d Pers., also of the Future, thus ὄψῃ, μαίνῃ, 
παρέξῃ, ἀπαρνήσῃ, etc. ; see Win. § 13. 2, p. T5sq. (73). The 
2d Pers. of οἴομαι does not occur. In the N. T. Apocrypha 
always βούλῃ, ὄψῃ (Nicod. B. 6,9; Ep. Clem. 1, 39, etc.). 


B. p. 163; H. ὃ 355 sq.; C. § 330; Ὁ. p. 258; J. ὃ 192. 

The (Alexandrian, see An. Bekk. p. 91) termination, com- 
mon in the Sept., of -ocay for -ov especially in the 2d Aor. (see 
examples in Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 59; Mullach,Vulg. Spr. p.16), 
does not occur very often in the N. T. The reading of cod. 
A [x also] in 2 Thess. iii. 6, παρέλάβοσαν, has not been adopted 
by Lchm. [yet so Tdf.eds.7,8]; ἐδολιοῦσαν in Rom. iii. 13 is in 
a quotation from the O. T. (Ps. v. 9); and ἐδίδοσαν, which 
Winer p. 77 (74) adds to these, cannot be taken into account. 
In the 3d Pers. of 2d Aorists the ending -av was more common 
(ὖὗλθαν, εἶδαν), as observed above, p. 39. Accordingly we 
have only εἴχοσαν (John xv. 22, 24) left, — an Imperfect form, 
therefore, which is as isolated here as εἶχαν was above; see 
respecting it my article in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1858, Heft 3, 
Ρ. 485sqq. It is remarkable that this very form has the au- 
thority of cod. Alex. against it. 


B. p. 164; C. § 380; D. p. 253; J. $191. 


The ending -av for -aoz in the Perfect is now established in 


many passages of the N. T., as John xvii. 7; Rev. xviii. 3 
Lehm. [Tdf. Treg.]; Jas. v. 4; Acts xvi. 36 etc., see Winer 
§ 13, p. 76 (78); yet not in all, see e.g. Luke ix. 36 [-av Tdf. 
Treg.]; Rev. viii. 2; 1 John ii. 18 (γεγόνασιν, but in Rom. 
xvi. 7; Rev. xxi. 6 etc. yéyovav), etc. 


Quite without parallel is the 2d Pers. Sing. of the same tense wiih 
the ending -es for -as: Rev. ii. 3 κεκοπίακες. See Lehm. pref. p. 42 
note, and cf. Exod. v. 22 Alex. This form of the Perf., however, 
was by no means uncommon in the Alexandrian dialect, as is apparent 
from Apollon. Synt. p. 37,9; 71, 12, and is found both in cod. Vat. 
and cod. Sin. in many other passages also. 


The 3d Pers. Plur. of the Pluperf. Act. is uniformly -εἰσαν, 
as πεποιήκεισαν Mark xy. 7, etc., even when in Attic the form 
in -εσὰν is the only one in use see οἶδα, p. 51. (But ἀπ-, 
ἐξήεσαν Acts xvii. 15, etc.) 


38 


44 CONTRACT VERBS. 


Conrracr VERBS. 
B. § 105; H. ὃ 870 sq.; C. § 809 sq.; D. ὃ 882 5ᾳ.; J. § 288 sq. 
The uncontracted Imperative ἀπόχεε (B. p. 174, note) has a 
parallel in the form (Rev. xvi. 1) ἐκχέετε (Rec. ἐκχέατε). Cf. 
Lechm. pref. p. 42 note. 


B. p. 167, note; H. § 871; C. §809¢.; D. p.256; J. § 239. 

In the more recent editions the ὁ subscript is omitted in the 
Infin. termination -év. Yet in consideration of the Infin. ter- 
mination -οὔν for -οῦν in verbs in 6w, which is here and there 
given and even accepted (Matt. xiii. 32, cf. Mark iv. 832; Heb. 
vii. 5 where Tdf. [so too Treg.] after cod. B reads dzroSexaroiv), ἡ 
the other mode of writing is perhaps to be preferred in the N. T. 


8. § 105, N. 5; H. § 871; C. § 120; D. p. 262; J. § 289. 

Of the-four verbs here mentioned, δυψιάω and πεινάω do not 
follow the rule, as they everywhere revert to the main rule and 
contract into a, e.g. Rom. xii. 20. That πεινάω (not dupa) 
retains the a in the other tenses also see p. 37. 


Β, $105, N. 8; C. § 822; H. §870D.; D. p. 268 5ᾳ.; J. § 240. 

As in the case of the forms τέσσερα etc., see above p. 29, so when 
contractions of verbs in dw which have ἡ in the Future occur oc- 
casionally as if from -éw (but only into -ov), we are hardly warranted in 
regarding them as Ionisms, but only as irregularities (perhaps of the 
scribes) occasioned by analogous forms. Thus we find ἠρώτουν Matt. 
xv. 23 [Mark iv. 10 Tdf.], νικοῦντι Rev. ii. 7,17 Lchm. [so T. Tr. vs. 
17]; but νικῶντας again in xv. 2 (-otvras C.); [ἐμβριμούμενος John xi. 88 
Taf. ; ἐνεβριμοῦντο Mark xiv. 5 Tdf.]. Numerous examples of the con- 
traction in ov may be quoted, moreover, from the Apocrypha of the 
N.T., the Apost. Fathers, ete.; cf. also Cram. Anecd. IV. p. 412. 

Respecting the opposite change of éw into dw see ἐλεέω and ξυρέω in 
the list of anomalous.verbs, pp. 57, 63. 


VERBS IN μι. 
B. § 107; H. § 400; C. § 45; D.§819; J. § 274. 

The remark that the contracted forms of the 3d Pers. 
Plur. were those used in common Greek, does not hold at least 
in the N. T., for there only the ordinary Attic forms are in 
use, as τιθέασι, διδόασι Matt. v. 15; Rev. xvii. 13, etc. 

Side by side with the common forms of the Pres. ἵστημι, 
the later Present form ἱστάνω occurs, especially in the Indic. 
and Partic., as συνιστάνω Gal. ii. 18, συνιστάνομει: 2 Cor. v. 
12. é& συν- καθιστάνων Acts i. 6; viii. 9; xvii. 15; 2 Cor. x 


CONTRACT VERBS. 45 


12,18, ete. Besides this, the Rec. often had by-forms of the 
Pres. from the theme in dw, see Winer 78 (75). These, how- 
ever, in the Indic. and Partic. have all now been changed: 
some into the common form (as in 2 Cor. iv. 2; vi. 4), and some 
into that in vw (see above). The Infinitive in Lachmann’s 
edition [and Treg.’s] is given, as commonly, ἱστάναι (1 Cor. 
xiii. 2), and once as from the collateral form in da, viz. iota 
(2 Cor. iii. 1). But as important mss. give in both passages 
[x Tdf. 8in 2 Cor. 1.0.7 the form in -dvew, Ταῦ, [eds. 2,7] in con- 
sideration of the above examples has given it the preference. 

The contracted forms of the Imperfect (B. p. 183), 
ἐτίθουν, ἐτίθει, ἐδίδουν, -ov are by far the most common forms 
in the N. T. as also in common prose, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 26; 
Mark iv. 8; vi. 7,56; Luke xxiv. 30; Acts ii. 47; iii. 2; iv. 35; 
2 Cor. iii. 18, etc. Instances like ἐδίδοσαν John xix. 3; Acts 
xvi. 4, ἐπετίθεσαν Acts viii. 17, are exceptional, (and have 
for the most part important variants against them). In the 
Present of both verbs only the common forms (τίθημι, -σι, 
etc.) are in use, and the neuter Partic. ἀποδιδοῦν Rev. xxii. 2 
is quite isolated. In Rev. iii. 9 we find διδῶ, which Lchm. 
[ Tdf. eds. 7,8] following thetwo leading mss. [but not Sin.] has 
adopted, manifestly for the Indic. (not Subjunc.), which here 
agreeably to the style of the Rev. stands for the Future (Vulg. 
dabo), the common form of which, δώσω, occurs ii. 17, etc. 

The fourth formation in vwe occurs, indeed, in the N.T., 
yet perpetually alternating with the inflection in ὕω (which is 
more common in later authors). Forexample, from δεικνύναι 
we have δείκνυμι 1 Cor. xii. 31, δεικνύεις John ii. 18, dedevvow 
Matt. iv. 8; John v. 20, δεικνύειν Matt. xvi. 21, ἐπιδεικνύς, 
᾿ ἀποδεικνύντα Acts xviii. 28; 2 Thess. ii. 4, δεικνύοντος Rev. 
xxii. 8, ἐπιδεικνύμεναι Acts ix. 89: from ὀλλύναι: ἀπόλλνε 
Rom. xiv. 15, ’AzrodAvov Rev. ix. 11 (ef. Sir. xx. 22), ἀπόλλυται 
1 Cor. viii. 11, -ὑμεθα Matt. viii. 25, -ύμενοι 2 Cor. iv. 9, etc. 
In other verbs the form in vw has almost completely superseded 
the other; for instance, from ὄμνυμι we have ὀμνύει, ὀμνύετε, 
ὀμνύουσι; ὀμνύειν in Matt. xxvi. 74 (but in the parallel passage 
Mark xiv. 71 ὀμνύναι; where, however, cod. A [so Sin.] also 
has -vew); further, ἐστρώννυον, ἐζώννυες, etc. 

In the Subjunctive of the Pres. and 2d Aor. Act. the 
ordinary contracted forms (710, θῶ, etc.) are everywhere found. 


40 


46 CONTRACT VERBS. 


Yet of δέδω με three forms of the 8d Pers. Sing. have been 
preserved, viz. 

1) The regular (6:66) δῷ Matt. v. 25; John xv. 16 Lehm. 
[ Treg. Tdf.], and often. 

2) διδοῖ, δοῖ. These forms are not Optative [cf. e.g. Tdf. 
ed. 7, p. lvii] but Subjunctive, and have arisen by regular con- 
traction from a theme in όω (cf. μισθόῃ, μισθοῖν) : 1 Cor. xv. 24; 
Mark iv. 29; [viii. 37 T. Tr.]; xiv. 10,11; John xiii. 2, (and as 
important variants in John xiii. 29; Eph. iv. 29; 1 Thess. v.15; 
Luke xxii. 4). And in like manner from the syncopated Aor. 
ἔγνων comes the 3d Pers. Subjunc. yvot Mark v. 43; ix. 30; 
Luke xix. 15 (John xi. 57 var.). In 1 Mace. xi. 40 we find 
παραδοῖ ; in Hermas, Mand. iv., yvot (Sin.). On the Subjune- 
tive cf. § 139, 37, p. 233. 

3) δώῃ (not δῴη or δῴῃ) as if from a lengthened form de. 
This form is the rarest and is quite without analogies in later 
Greek in its favor. It occurs in Eph. i. 17 Lehm. [δῴη Tdf. 
eds. 2,7,8; Treg.] (B 66), 2 Tim. ii. 25 Lchm. [δῴη Tdf. eds. 
2, 7,8; Treg.] and John xv. 16 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7; ed. 8, Lchm. 
Treg. δῷ]. 

The 2d Pers. Sing. appears always in the form δῷς, γνῷς : 
Mark vi. 25; Luke i. 4; Rev. iii. 8 [Ταῦ Treg. γνώσῃ]; ete. 

The (Pres. and) Aor. Optative of δίδωμι, which in ac- 
cordance with the syntax of the N. T. occurs but rarely, has 
the later form (dd@nv) δῴην ; see Lob. Phryn. p. 346. Of the 
passages cited by Winer p. 78sq. (75) only Rom. xv.5; 2 Tim. 
i. 16, 18 (according to Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] also Eph. i. 17 [ed. 8; so 
Tr.]; iii. 16 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25 [ed. 8; so Tr.]; iv. 14) belong under 
this head, as the others have been changed in modern editions, 
some into the Subjunctive(da, d@7)some into the Future(dacev). 


B. 8107, N. 1.8; H. $402; C. 8 806 ο.; D. p. 183; J. §277. 
The Aorist in κα of the three verbs τίθημι, δίδωμι, ἵημι is 
uniformly in use in the N.T., not only in the Sing. and 3d 
Pers. Plur. but also in the Ist and 2d Pers. Plur., so that in 
the Indicative it has almost completely supplanted the 2d 
Aorist; as, ἐδώκαμεν, -re, Matt. xxv. 35; Mark vii. 13; Gal. 
iv. 15; 1 Thess. iv. 2; ἀφήκαμεν, συνήκατε, etc. Matt. xiii. 51; 
xix. 27; xxiii. 23; Mark x. 28, etc.; (only once παρέδοσαν Luke 
i. 2). 
The Moods, on the other hand, are formed from the 2d Aor, 
throughout. 


CONTRACT VERBS. 41 


Respecting the very anomalous Subjunctive δώσῃ, see p. 86 
above. 

B. §107, N. I. 14; H. $401; ©. § 297; J. $274. 

The 2d Aor. Imperative of ἵστημι occurs in both forms: 
ἀνάστα Acts xii. T ete., and ἀνάστηθι, ἐπίστηθι Acts ix. 6, 34; 
2 Tim. iv. 2. Cf. the anomalous βαίνω, p. 54. 

The Present Imperative Pass. of ἵστημι has only the full 
form ἵστασο: 2 Tim. ii. 16; Tit. iii. 9. 

The 3d Pers. Sing. of the Imperf. and 2d Aor. Middle of 
δίδωμι ought, according to common usage, to run ἐδίδοτο, ἔδοτο, 
as Lchm. [so Treg.] reads in Matt. xxi. 83; Mark xii.1; Luke 
xx. 9. But in other passages according to pretty trustworthy 
authority (and in the [last two of the] above three also accord- 
ing to cod. A [and in all three according to codd. & B]) it is 
preserved for us with the ending -ero, as if from the theme δίδω. 
Thus dvedidero Acts iv. 35, amédero Heb. xii. 16, παρεδίδετο 
1 Cor. xi. 23, and often in the Sept. e.g. Ex. ii. 21; v.13 Alex. 
That this erroneous inflection is not unexampled in later Greek 
may be seen from Stephanus, Thes. under δίδωμι ; cf., too, the 
theme ἕω under fs, p. 48. The more recent collations have 
shown that both cod. Vat. and cod. Sin. rather favor than oppose 
this form. Both codd. exhibit prima manu almost always -ετο. 
Hence it is not to be discarded from the N.T.; on the contrary, 
the form in -oro is rather a later (Grecizing) correction. 

The Future form ἐκδόσεται (Matt. xxi. 41) has been set 
aside. 

Β. § 107, m. 21; H. § 416; ©. § 50; J. § 819. 

The Aorist and Future Pass. ἐστάθην, σταθήσομαι occur very 
frequently in a purely neuter force, interchangeably with 
ἔστην, στήσομαι. - Examples abound in all parts of the N. T., 
as Matt. xii. 25; Luke xviii. 10; xxi. 86; Rev. vi. 17; Rom. 
xiv. 4, etc. Both forms σταθῆναι and στῆναι are united in 
Mark iii. 24 sq. Ταῦ, [Treg.]. . Winer’s statement p. 252 (287) 
that the Ist Aor. Act. ἔστησα also occurs in an intransitive 
sense is without foundation; for in the isolated instance, Acts 
XXvil. 28, an object (as ναῦν or ἑαυτούς) is to be supplied, ac- 
cording to the well-known rule (δ 180, 4 p. 144), which is to 
be applied also to the N. T. 

Of the syncopated forms of the Perfect, we find most 
frequently in use — but always alternating with the full forms — 


tI 


42 


48 CONTRACT VERBS. 


the Infin. ἑστάναι (Acts xii. 14; 1 Cor. x. 12) and the very 
common Partic. ἑστώς, ἑστῶσα. The Neuter in the abbreviated 
form is ἑστός Matt. xxiv. 15; Rev. xiv. 1 (Tdf. [ed. 2] ἑστώς 
[7, 8, Tr. ἑστός7). On the other hand, the full form ἑστηκός is 
found Mark xiii. 14 [-κότα T. Tr.]; Rev. v. 6 [-κώς T. Tr.]. 

Of the collateral form of the Present we find στήκει John i. 
26 ete., στήκετε (Indic. and Imperat.), and the Subjunc. 
στήκητε 1 Thess. iii. 8, (see B. p. 187, Note *); and one ex- 
ample of the Perfect ἕστακα in a transitive sense, Acts viii. 11 
(cf. 9 and 13). 

ἵἕημι, 
B. 8 108, 109; H. § 408; C. p. 78; D. p. 295; J. § 283 sq. : 

It is by far the most difficult task to lay down the N. T. use 
of the verb tu; for nowhere do the mss. (and consequently 
the editions also) vary so noticeably as in the case of this verb. 
Since its use is frequent, we will distribute the forms which 
occur under the various themes. 

1) Present yc: Under this head we comprise the common 
use, which is in the main that of the N. T. also, as is attested 
by the forms ἀφίησι, ἀφίετε, συνιᾶσι (2 Cor. x. 12 Lehm. 
[T.Tr.]), ἀφιέτω, συνιῶσιν (Mark, Luke), cumeis; Aorist 
συνῆκα (see p. 46), παρεῖναι (Luke xi. 42), συνῶ, ava (Heb. 
xiii. 5), ἄφες, σύνετε (Mark vii. 14), aveis; Passive ἀφίεται, 
ἀφίενται, καθιέμενος, παρειμένος. The Aor. Pass. is only found 
unaugmented: ἀνέθη Acts xvi. 26, ἀφέθησαν Rom. iv. 7. 

2) Theme ΕΏ. Here belongs (besides the regular Pres. 
Subjunc. given above) the Indic. 3d Pers. Plur. if accented as 
perispome (συνιοῦσιν, adiodow), as is done by Tdf. [eds. 2, T] 
Matt. xiii. 18 [ed. 8 also]; Rev. xi.9; 2Cor. x.12. But the form 
has few analogies. Still, they are now offered us by Hermas ; 
who, indeed, in the Infin. uniformly has συνιέναι, but elsewhere 
always συνιῶ, συνιεῖς. Yet since (according to cod. Simon.) 
Hermas gives the Imperat. ove, perhaps we ought also to read 
everywhere συνίω, συνίεις ; but in Mand. 6, 2 cvmeis is a Future. 
Lchm.[soTreg. ]has accordingly sometimes( with cod. B)changed 
it into the regular form, and sometimes accented it as proparoxy- 
tone [cf. T. on Rev. 1. c.]— in this way bringing it under the 

8) Theme ‘IN. Here belong, besides this 3d Pers. Plur. 
ἵουσιν, the 1st Pers. ἀφίομεν Luke xi. 4 (and moreover, as an 
important variant in Matt. vi. 12, etc.), the Partic. συνίων Rom. 


CONTRACT VERBS. 49 


iii. 11 (Tdf. again from “IEQ: συνιῶν, see above; but quite 
erroneously in the Rec. συνιών Matt. xiii. 23), Eph. v. 17 var., 
ἀφίονται in cod. D (Matt. ix. 2, 5 [cod. Sin. also], etc.), and 
especially, the thoroughly established Imperfect form ἤφιεν 
Mark i. 384; xi. 16, (on which cf. B. p. 194, 5; J. § 284, and 
Lehm. praef. p. 43). Finally 

4) Theme ‘EQ —to which belongs the isolated ἀφεῖς Rev. 
ii. 20. 

5) Besides, there is still the Perf. Pass. 8d Pers. Plur. 
ἀφέωνται, already mentioned in B. p. 191, Note *. This seems 
to be a Dorism not peculiar to the N. T. but, on the contrary, 
rather widely extended, and even received by Attic writers ; 
see Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 344; Bredow, Dial. Herod. p. 395. 
Tdf. [eds. 2,7] adopted it throughout, Lchm. [Tdf. ed. 8, Treg. ] 
only in Luke and John (also in 1 John ii. 12), but in Matt. 
and Mark ἀφίενται instead. See the passages in Wahl, and 
Winer § 14, p. 80 (77). 

ἦἣμαι. 

The 2d Pers. Sing. κά θῃ and Imperat. κάθου, noticed (in Β. 
p- 192) as later forms, are both found in the N. T. — the former 
in Acts xxiii. 3, the latter in a quotation from the O. T. (Ps. ex.) 
in several passages (Matt. xxii. 44, Acts, Heb., etc.), and else- 
‘where also: Jas. li. 3. 


ἕννυμι. 

Instead of ἀμφιέννυμι (Matt. vi. 80, etc.) the N. T. has a 
by-form ἀμφιέξω Luke xii. 28 Tdf. [Treg.] which has been 
formed, it is supposed, from the ordinary Fut. ἀμφιέσω. Lehm. 
(after cod. B) substitutes for it the still more anomalous form 
ἀμφιάζει, not found elsewhere in the N. T., with which we 
have to compare only the (unreceived) reading of cod. D 
ἠμφιασμένος in Matt. xi. 8. The form ἀμφιάζειν, however, is 
found in the O. T. (e.g. Job xxix. 14; xl. 5) and sometimes 
elsewhere also in later writers; see Steph. sub voce. On the 
derivation of this form (held by the ancient grammarians to 
be a Dorism) cf. Lobeck, Rhemat. p. 228. 


εἰμί, 

The later by-form of the Imperat. 3d Pers. Sing. (B. p. 198, 
Note +; C. p. 14. ; Ὁ. p. 229; J. 8 286, 2), ἤτω, is found in 
1 Cor: xvi. 22; Jas. v. 12, (on the other hand, ἔσθιε in Matt. 

7 


43 


44 


50 CONTRACT VERBS. 


11.13; 1 Tim. iv. 15; ἔστω in 1 Pet. iii. 3; ἔστωσαν, etc.). 
Further, the Imperf. 2d Pers. Sing. ἧς (questioned by Winer 
80 (76)) is found without variant, and has accordingly been 
received, in Matt. xxv. 21,23; John xi. 21,32; xxi. 18; Rev. 
iii. 15. On the other hand ἦσθα as usual in Matt. xxvi. 69; 
Mark xiv. 67. 

The 2d Pers. Plur. of the Imperf. is only ἦτε, Rom. vi. 20, 
etc. As to Luke ii. 33 (ἣν .. . θαυμάζοντες) see § 129, 3 p. 127. 

In the 1st Pers. Sing. the Imperf. has uniformly the Mid. 
form ἤμην (so that ἣν in the N. T. is only 3d Pers. Sing.), as 
Matt. xxv. 35, etc. (see Wahl); rarely in the 1st Pers. Plur. 
ἤμεθα, Matt. xxiii. 30; Acts xxvii. 37. On the other hand, 
ἦμεν as usual in Rom. vii. 5; Eph. ii. 3[Tdf. Treg. ἤμεθα], ete 

With regard to the inclination of εἰμί the remarks made, 
Ρ- 6 above, hold true. 

As an example of the peculiar style of the Apocalypse, often 
setting at defiance the laws of Grammar, may be here set down 
the frequently recurring formula ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἣν; for here 
the Imperf. 3d Pers. Sing. ἦν, ἴῃ the want of a Partic. Pret. of 
εἷναι, is not only used as such a Partic., but also the entire 
expression itself (by the use of the Art.) is treated like an 
indeclinable noun: i. 4,8; iv. 8; xi. 17. 


εἶμι, 

This verb, so common with the Greeks, does not occur as a 
simple verb in the whole N. T. (also not in the O. T., with 
the exception, perhaps, of ἔθε Prov. vi. 6); but instead of it 
other and more expressive verbs are everywhere used, as 
ἔρχομαι, Baivw, ὑπάγω, etc. Even in John vii. 34, 36, where 
some would read εἶμι, the only correct reading is εἰμί. 

In composition it appears, but almost exclusively in the 
Acts (which approximates most closely to the Greek diction), 
as €&-, ἀπήεσαν, eistévat, (εἴςιθε in cod. B Acts ix. 6), eisyes, 
ἐξιόντων, ἡ ἐπιοῦσα 50. ἡμέρα ; see the passages in Wahl. Else- 
where isolated compound forms occur; but still only in Luke 
(viii. 4) συνιόντος, and the Ep. to the Heb. (ix. 6) eislacw. 


κεῖμαι. 
This verb is plainly used as Perf. Pass. οἵ τίθημι (B. p. 198,4) 
in Acts xxviii. 20 ταύτην τὴν ἅλυσιν περίκειμαι. Of. § 134, 
7 p. 189. 


DEPONENTS PASSIVE. 51 


οἶδα. 

Of οἶδα the regular (unsyncopated) forms of the Indicative 
are the only forms in use; thus 2d Pers. οἶδας (Matt. xv. 12, 
etc.), Plur. οἴδαμεν, οἴδατε (xxii. 16; xx. 25, etc.), also 3d 
Pers. οἴδασιν (Jude 10; Luke xi. 44, etc.). Only in the Acts 
again do we find once (xxvi. 4) the Attic 8d Pers. Plur. 
ἴσασιν, and in James i. 19 the best Mss. give ἴστε (Vulg. also 
scitis) instead of the reading of the Rec. ὥστε, although the 
author elsewhere (iv. 4) writes οἴδατε. 

The forms of the Moods correspond to the Attic, even in the 
Imperat. of which the syncopated form ἴστε occurs Eph. v. 5; 
Heb. xii. 17.1 

The Imperfect has only ἤδεις in the 2d Pers. Sing., Luke xix. 
22 etc., and in the 3d Pers. Plur. always ἤδεισαν, according 
to what was said on p. 43; as, Mark xiv. 40; Luke iv. 41; 
John ii. 9; Acts xvi. 3, ete. 


DEPONENTS PASSIVE. 
B. § 118, 4; H. § 418; C. § 266; D. §§ 387. 438; J. § 820. 

The custom of Deponent Verbs — or of such as in the Middle 
form receive a peculiar meaning, whether transitive or intrans- 
itive — to form their Aorist out of the Passive steadily increased 
in later times, as may be gathered, for example, from the list 
of those verbs which may have both Aorists, since then the Pas- 
sive Aor. belongs for the most part to the latér period. Thus 
ἀπεκρίθη, is far more common in the N. T. than ἀπεκρίνατο 
(this occurs e.g. Matt. xxvii. 12; Acts iii. 12, etc.) ; ἀνάγομαι, 
αὐλίζομαι, have only ἀνήχθην, οἴο. Yet there are also cases of 
the opposite kind, as ἀρνέομαι, ὁπλίζομαι, and others still are 
used quite promiscuously, as ἀγαλλιάομαι 5 (John v. 35; viii. 


1 At any rate the Vulg. has scitote in both passages. Still, in both passages it 
suits the contents better to take this form as 2d Pers. Plur. Indicative, — especially 
in the Ep. to the Heb., which, moreover, in many respects approximates to the 
classic Greek more nearly than do the other Epp. 

2 This verb (peculiar to the N. T. and Sept. and also to the ecclesiastical au- 
thors, but to profane writers almost unknown) is in all probability not a Greek 
word but of oriental origin, coined out of the Hebr. bry (δ, D53R, abstr. mma) 
to rejoice, which is often, especially in the prophetic writings, rendered by ἀγαλ- 
λιᾶσθαι. Accordingly, with the word ἀγάλλομαι it has originally nothing to do. 
Probably, however, it may have found support in this well-known word (as is the 
case with all languages in the ad-ption of foreign words, Grimm, deutsch. W6rterb. 
Vorr. p. xxvi) to which in signification also it has a distant resemblance. The 
Hebr. consonant " on the reception of the word took its place after the liquids, — 
a position better suited to the Greek utterance. 


46 


52 DEPONENTS PASSIVE. 


56, etc.), ἐμβριμάομαι (Matt. ix. 80; Mark i. 43). However, 
a complete exhibition of the use of all deponent and middle 
verbs would carry us too far, and the subject must consequently 
be left (as being of a lexical rather than a grammatical 
nature) to the special dictionaries, or to a more extended 
discussion. 

But that in the language of the N. T. the Passive formation 
was employed in general, far more than was the case earlier, 
to denote the reflexive or intransitive sense answering 
to the Active, may for example’s sake be illustrated in a few 
instances. Thus we have already seen (on p. 47) that the Aor. 
Pass. ἐστάθην often stands precisely in the sense of ἔστην, and is 
interchanged with it. So e.g. in Matthew κριθῆναι means in Vv. 
40 merely litigate (but vii. 1 μὴ κριθῆτε purely Pass. be yudged), 
διακριθῆναι xxi. 21 doubt, EnpavOjvar xxi. 19 etc. dry up, 
φιμωθῆναι xxii. 12 grow dumb, σκανδαλισθῆναι, -θήσεσθαι Xi. 
6 etc. take offence, σπλαγχνισθῆναι ix. 36 etc. feel compassion, 
ἄρθητι καὶ βλήθητι xxi. 21 raise yourself and cast yourself (cf. 
Luke xvii. 6), ἠγέρθη xxvii. 64 swrrexit (Vulg.), ἐγέρθητε xvii. 
T, ἐνεβριμήθη ix. 80 comminatus est, συνήχθησαν xxii. 84; ΧχΥ. 
32 convenerunt; and connected with a new object (according 
to ὃ 135, 3 p. 191): ἐντραπήσονται τὸν υἱόν μου xxi. 81 vere- 
buntur filiwm meum. ᾿Εγενήθην, γενηθήτω (vi. 10; ix. 29) 
alternates with the ordinary Aor. Mid. γενέσθαι; and ὥφθη, so 
common (xvii. 3, etc.), means not was seen but appeared, and 
hence is connected with the Dative αὐτοῖς (not ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν; 
with which ef. the familiar use ὃ 184, 2 p. 187). Or to take 
examples from James: μαρανθήσεται i. 11 will wither away, 
ὑποτάγητε iv. T a pure reflexive submit yourselves, so too 
μεταστραφήτω iv. 9, ταπεινώθητε iv. 10, etc. 


B. § 113, N. 6; H. $415; C. 8. 688; J. § 368. 


That certain tenses of deponent verbs, especially the Perf. 
Aor. and Fut. Pass., are used in a passive sense, abundant 
examples may be brought from the N. T. fo show ; for in fact 
the usage was somewhat current among the Greeks. Thus are 
used θεαθῆναι Matt. vi. 1; xxiii. 5, ἀσφαλισθῆναι from ἀσφα- 
λίσασθαι xxvii. 64, 65, ἴαται Mark v. 29, ἰαθήσεται Matt. viii. 8, 
χαρισθῆναι, λογισθῆναι, μνησθῆναι (Acts x. 31), ἐπιλελησμένον 
ἐστίν (Luke xii. 6), ete. Very rarely (as also among Greek 


ANOMALOUS VERBS. 53 


authors) does this take place in the Present, e.g. λογίζεται 
Rom. iv. 4, 5, and probably also βιάζεται Matt. xi. 12, see the 
commentaries and cf. Luke xvi. 16, and relative to the similar 
use of βιάζεσθαι by the Greeks see Pape. 


B. § 118, N.7; H. ὃ 412; C. § 584; Ὁ. § 844; J. § 321. 

Exactness in the employment of the Fut. Mid. of many 
verbs as an ordinary Fut. has undergone a marked dimi- 
nution in the N. T. and among the «ovvol in general. To be 
sure, ἀκούσομαι still occurs often enough, especially in the 
Acts (the Mid. form almost exclusively in the 1st and 3d Pers. 
Plur., John v. 25, 28; Acts xxi. 22; xxviii. 28; xvii. 32; Rom. 
Χ. 14 var.; Active, John x. 16. Cf. κλαίω p. 60 sq.), but likewise 
often ἀκούσω, -σετε Matt. xiii. 14 etc. ; further ἀπαντήσω Mark 


xiv. 13, γελάσω Luke vi. 21, διώξω John xv. 20 etc., ἐπαινέσω 


1 Cor. xi. 22 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7,8; Tr.], ἐπιορκήσω Matt. v. 33, 
κλέψω Rom. xiii. 9 etc., σπουδάσω 2 Pet. i. 15. The Future 
form in Luke xii. 9 cod. Sin. ἀπαρνήσεται (although in itself 
considered genuine Greek, see B. § 113, 6) rests probably on a 
mistake of the copyist (for -νηθήσεται). 


Β. 8118, N.9; C. § 576. 

The remark that the alleged Passive sense of the Aor. Mid. 
is extremely rare, holds good also in reference to the N. T., 
inasmuch as the examples referred by some to this head (Gal. 
v.12; 1 Cor. x. 2 Tdf. [eds. 2,7; Treg.]; 2 Cor. v. 4) are all 
to be taken in a Middle or Neuter (not Passive) sense. Acts 
xv. 22 even the Vulgate translates correctly, eligere viros 
ex eis et mittere. 

ANOMALOUS VERBS. 

! Β. $114; Η. § 451; ©. 8 50; Ὁ. § 868; J. § 250 sqq. 

ayvupe. The retention of the augment in tenses other- 
wise without it occurs Matt. xii. 20 (xared&ev), John xix. 31 
(xateayaow). Of. ἀνοίγω under οἴγω, p. 62. 

ἄγω. For an example of the 1st Aor. in composition see 
2 Pet. ii. 5 ἐπάξας. On the other hand, κατ-, ἐπωγαγεῖν Acts 
v. 28, etc. 

aipéw. Respecting the Alexandrian Aor. 3d Pers. Plur. 
εἷλαν (Acts x. 39), Mid. εἱλάμην, etc., see p. 89. Examples 
of the Fut. ἑλῶ in composition see in Luke xii. 18 (καθελῶ), 
Rev. xxii. 19 (ἀφελεῖ) ; of. Josh. ii. 18 ἐξελεῖσθε. 


41 


48 


54 ANOMALOUS VERBS. 


ἅλλομαι. The Aorist has the form ἥλατο Acts xiv. 10; 
but Partic. ἐφαλόμενος Acts xix. 16 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] (al. 
ἐφαλλ.). 

ἁμαρτάνω. Future ἁμαρτήσω Matt. xviii. 21. The Aorist 
always has in the Indic. the form ἥμαρτον ; in the Subjune. 
alternate the 2d Aor. ἁμάρτῃ, ἁμάρτητε (1 John ii. 1, etc.) and 
the 1st Aor. ἁμαρτήσῃ Matt. xviii. 15, ἁμαρτήσωμεν Rom. vi. 15 
(Rec. -σομεν), even in close proximity, as Luke xvii. 3, 4. 
The Partic. is always ἁμαρτήσας : Rom. v. 14,16; 2 Pet. ii. 4; 
Heb. iii. 17. Hermas invariably uses ἡμάρτησα, ἁμαρτήσας, etc. 

ἀπειλέω threaten, elsewhere only Active (1 Pet. ii. 23), is 
used by Luke as Mid. in the same sense, Acts iv. 17, 21. 

ἁρπάξω has the first formation throughout: Fut. ἁρπάσω 
Matt. xii. 29; Mark iii. 27; Johu x. 28, Aor. ἥρπασα Acts viii. 
39 etc., (Perf.) Pluperf. συνηρπάκει Luke viii. 29, Ist Aor. 
Pass. ἡρπάσθην Acts xxvii. 15; Rev. xii. 5. On the other 
hand, from the second formation it has only tenses with a pure 
characteristic: 2d Aor. Pass. ἡρπάγην 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4, Fut. 
ἁρπαωγήσομαι 1 Thess. iv. 17. 

αὐξάνω has not only the causative sense, make grow, 
1 Cor. iii. 6, Fut. αὐξήσω 2 Cor. ix. 10 etc., but also the 
immediative, grow, (Matt. vi. 28, etc.), for which also the 
Mid. or Pass. form αὐξάνομαι is used, 2 Cor. x. 15; Col. i. 10. 
The Aorist in this sense is both ηὔξησα Acts vii. 17 and ηὐξήθην 
Matt. xiii. 82; 1 Pet. ii.2. The simple Pres. form αὔξω only 
in the latter sense Eph. ii. 21,—also in Col. ii. 19 αὔξει τὴν 
αὔξησιν according to ὃ 131, 5 p. 148. 

Baivw. The syncopated Imperat. Aor. has in composition 
both forms, as in the case of ἴστημι (see p. 47); thus κατά-, 
μετάβηθι John iv. 49; vii. 8 etc., μετάβα Matt. xvii. 20, ἀνάβα 
Rev. iv. 1 Tdf. [also Treg.]. The further inflection appears Matt. 
καταβάτω xxiv. 17 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.], Mark xiii. 15; Luke 
xvii. 91, ἀνάβατε Rev. xi. 12. 

βαρύνω. This theme does not occur at all in the N. T. 
(also no longer in Luke xxi. 34), but instead the un-Attic 
(except in the Perf., see Thom. Mag. sub voce) theme βαρέω: 
BapeicOw, βεβαρημένος, βαρηθῶσιν, ἐπιβαρῆσαι, etc., [yet κατα- 
βαρυνόμενοι Mark xiv. 40 Lchm. Tdf. ΤΥ θρ.]. 

βιόω has been almost completely supplanted (in the Fut. 
and Aor. also) by the verb &v, as we find only βιῶσαι, 1 Pet. 
iv. 2. See ζῇν, p. 58. 


ANOMALOUS VERBS. 55 


βλαστάνω has in the Aorist only the later form of the 1st 
Aor. ἐβλάστησα Matt. xiii. 26; Heb. ix. 4; also in an Active 
sense Jas. v. 18, on which cf. § 131, 4 p. 147. The Subjunce. 
Pres. is βλαστᾷ in Mark iv. 27 (Rec. βλαστάνῃ) from a col- 
lateral form βλαστάω, hardly to be found elsewhere (see Schol. 
Pind. Pyth. 4. 113 θάλλει καὶ βλαστᾷ). “ 

γαμέω. The Aor. runs indiscriminately now ἔγημα Luke 
xiv. 20 etc., now ἐγάμησα Mark vi. 17 etc., both side by side 
1 Cor. vii. 28. As respects signification, it is used in the Active 
as well of the man as of the woman, as in the above passage 
from Cor., where the difference in form does not indicate a 
difference in sense, but is purely accidental; for subsequently 
(vs. 84) γαμῆσαι is used also of the woman. In the Mid. 
(Pass.) it is always used of the woman, but in the Aor. it has 
only the Passive form γωμηθῆναι, instead of the Attic γήμασθαι, 
vs. 89 etc. On the collateral form γαμίζω, éxyapifw, see the 
lexicons. 

γίνομαι. The Aorist has far more frequently the Attic 
form of the 2d Aor. Mid., especially in the Subjunc. and Optat. 
(μὴ γένοιτο), than the emulctic 1st Aor. Pass. ἐγενήθην 1 Thess. 
li. 5 etc., of which the Imperat. γενηθήτω often occurs in the 
πϑυόνν, the Partic. in Heb. iv. 8. Partic. γεγονώς in sense 
like natus, old, in 1 Tim. v. 9. 

γινώσκω. Respecting yvot (Aor. Subjunctive) see under 
δίδωμι. p. 46. 

That the Pass. of γινώσκω should sometimes (1 Cor. viii. 3; xiii. 12 ; 
Gal. iv. 9) be taken as Pass. of the causative signification (cause to know, 
bring to the knowledge of) like the Heb. Hophal, so that ἐγνώσθην ὑπὸ 
θεοῦ would mean ‘I was brought to knowledge by God, is an error 
which modern interpretation has already left behind it. See the com- 
mentaries on the above passages, and Winer 263 (247). 


δέομαι. The uncontracted form ἐδέετο [Tdf., also cod. 
Sin.] in Luke viii. 38, Lchm. has altered after several Mss. into 
the still more anomalous form ἐδεεῖτο (cf. Job xix. 16 Alex.), 
thus formed as it were from the same theme from which comes 
the common Aor. ἐδεήθην Matt. ix. 38, etc. Cf. the form 
δεούμεθα in the anti-Atticist, Anecd. Bekk. I. p. 90. 

δύναμαι. By the side of the common 2d Pers. Sing. 
δύνασαι is found sometimes the form (censured as Indic.) δύνῃ, 
Mark ix. 22; Rev. ii. 2. On the other hand, δυνήσῃ is now 


49 


56 ANOMALOUS VERBS. 


read [yet Treg. Tdf. ed. 8, δύνῃ ; so x also] in Luke xvi. 2. 
Respecting the augment see p. 33. 

δύω has in the Present, as often in later writers and the 
Sept., the intransitive sense: (of the sun) ἐπιδυέτω Eph. iv. 
26. The neuter by-form δύνω, Luke iv. 40, ought to form the 
Aorist ἔδυν, as also was formerly read in Mark i. 32. But 
recent editors, after preponderant Ms. authority [yet see be- 
low], give even here the 1st Aor. ἔδυσαν (in Luke iv. 40, 
also, cod. D has dvcavtos) used by Greeks only transitively ; 
and the compound παρειςέδυσαν, Jude 4, also has this intransi- 
tive sense. Elsewhere the Ist Aor. Act. in composition (ék-, 
evdvw) regularly has the transitive signification; in the in- 
transitive or reflexive (clothe one’s self) the form of the 1st 
Aor. Mid. makes its appearance. The syncopated Aor. ἔδυν has 
consequently passed quite out of use in the N.T.; cf. φύω p. 68. 
Yet the reading ἔδυ (Mark.i. 32 Tdf.) gains now a new support 
in cod. Sin. Instead of παρειςέδυσαν cod. Vat. gives -δύησαν, 
formed quite after the analogy of ἐφύην. Cf. Lobeck’s note in 
Buttm.’s Ausf. Sprachl. 11. p. 821, under dda. 

The Present by-form (διδύσκω) ἐνδιδύσκω, Mark xv. 17; 
Luke viii. 27; xvi. 19, analogously formed but unknown to 
earlier brhinig has a iinsitive sense. 

éyeipw. The Present Active has sometimes, but as it 
seems only in the Imperative (Matt. ix. 5,6; Mark x. 49; Acts 
iii. 6; Eph. v. 14), the intransitive signification (similar to 
ἄγε). In the Rec. it was formerly,in opposition to settled au- 
thority, altered into the Mid. form ἔγειραι ; this form was the 
less admissible as the Aorist in a neuter sense always in the 
N. T. has the Passive form ἠγέρθην ; see p. 52 above. Cobet 
has everywhere restored éyepar again. But Suidas (sub voce) 
censures expressly the erroneous (and hence actually occur- 
ring) use of ἔγειρε. 

(ἕξομαι) καθέζομαι. The Imperf. ἐκαθεζόμην has every- 
where plainly the Imperf. signification sat, was sitting, Matt. 
xxvi. 55; John iv. 6; xi. 20, synonymous therefore with the 
Imperf. ἐκαθήμην John vi. 3; Mark ili. 32, or with the very 
common periphrasis ἣν καθήμενος Acts ii. 2, etc. In the Present 
καθέζομαι is not in use except in the Participle (Luke ii. 46; 
Acts vi. 15). See the N.T. use of the forms which belong here 
under iw, p. 60. 


ANOMALOUS VERBS. BT 


ἐθέλω. Although in the Present only the shorter form θέλω 
occurs, yet the augmented forms alwaystake 9: ἤθελον, ἠθέλησα. 
The Perf. does not occur. (On τεθέληκα Ps. xli. 12 see Phryn. 
sub voce and Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 64.) 

εἰπεῖν. Respecting εἶπον and εἶπα see p. 39. Besides the forms 
of εἶπα usual in Attic writers (εἶπας, εἴπατε, etc.) we find 1st Pers. 
εἶπα Heb. iii.10 [Tdf.Tr. retain εἶπον] in quotation, Acts xxvi.15, 
προείπαμεν 1 Thess. iv. 6, 3d Plur. εἶπαν frequently interchanged 
with εἶπον (e.g. Matt. xxvii. 4, 6), Partic. e/mas Acts vii. 37 
etc. and εἰπών vs. 60 etc. The Imperative with the ending 
-ov is accented by the recent editors εὐπόν (Acts xxviii. 26; 
Mark xiii. 4, cf. Luke x. 40 var.). This accentuation, if the 
form is taken as Ist Aor. Imperat., conflicts with the rules of 
the old grammarians (Arcad. p. 169 δισύλλαβα παροξύνονται 
ἢ προπερισπῶνται" νεῖμον, εἶπον ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰπέ K.T.r.), ANA εἶπον 
accordingly is the only correct Attic accentuation, see Ph. 
Buttm. Exc. I. ad Plat. Men. and Xen. Mem. 3,6, 8. But as 
respects the Scriptures, the testimony of the old grammarian 


50 


Jo. Charax (see Etym. Mag. sub voce; Varini Hcl. p. 172 Dind.) ΄ 


is too clear and definite to allow us to adhere to the same 
accentuation in the N. T. (λέγει ὁ Χάραξ, ὅτι τὸ παρὰ τῇ θείᾳ 
γραφῇ προςτακτικὸν ὀξυτόνως λεγόμενον, οἷον εἶπόν ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰπέ, 
δευτέρου ἀορίστου ἐστὶ κατὰ τὴν Συρακουσίων γλῶσσαν λεγόμενον 
... οἷον λάβε λάβον, καὶ τὸ ἄνελε ἄνελον. εἰ οὖν εἰπέ ὀξυτόνως, 
δῆλον ὅτι καὶ εἶπόν K.T.r.) ; On the other hand, the same gram- 
marian expressly lays down the accentuation εἶπον for Me- 
nander. Mid. ἀπειπάμην 2 Cor. iv. 2. The less Attic mode 
of writing the 1st Aor. Pass. ἐρρέθην instead of ἐρρήθην 
(Matt. v. 21, etc. [yet Tdf. reads -ἐθην even here]) is now 
everywhere established in Paul (Rom. ix. 12, 26; Gal. iii. 16) 
and in the Apocalypse (vi. 11; ix. 4), so also commonly in 


the Sept. (Gen. xv. 13; 2 Sam. v. 6, etc.). The Partic. is 


always ῥηθείς, even in the Sept. (Gen. xlv. 27). 

ἐλεέω. The collateral Pres. form éAed is not only estab- 
lished by the ss., Rom. ix. 16 [so x], (18 [not x]); Jude 
23 [so x], but is also sufficiently attested by the testimony of 
the old grammarians (see Etym. Mag. and Steph. Thes. sub 
voce) as wellas by other analogous examples (as ξυρέω, Evpaw). 
In such verbs, however, the forms that arise by flexion always 
take η: ἐλεήσω, ἐλέησον, ξυρήσωνται, ἐξυρημένος, etc. See 

8 


51 


58 ANOMALOUS VERBS. 


Etym. Mag. p. 129, 49 and cf. ἐλλογᾶτο Rom. ν. 18 (A, [-αται 
x*]), ἐλλόγα Philem. 18. 

ἑλκόω. Respecting the augment see p. 34. 

épavvdaw, the Alexandrian spelling (see Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 117) 
for épevvdw, hence often found in cod. Alex., as Rom. xi. 35; 1 Pet. 
i. 10; 1 Cor. ii. 10, has been received only once by Lehm., in Rev. 
ii. 23; on the other hand by [Treg. and] Tdf. everywhere (even in 
Rom. viii. 27 with cod. Sin.). 

ἔρχομαι. Respecting the Alexandrian Aor. see p. 39, 
Since εἶμι is not used in the N. T. (except in composition, see 
Ρ. 50), the Pres. in its mood-forms (ἔρχου καὶ ide), the Im- 
perf. ἠρχόμην, and the Fut. ἐλεύσομαι make their appearance 
again; in connection with which it is to be noticed, that (like 
the Pres. ejus in Attic authors) ἔρχομαι here, agreeably to its 
signification, often has a future force, John ix.4; xiv. 3 (πάλιν 
ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι) etc., (cf. the Germ. ich komme). 
See the passages in Winer 265 (249), and cf. p. 38 above; 
also § 137, 10 p. 203. 

ἐσθίω. The by-form ἔσθω, otherwise only poetic (Zon. 
Lex. sub voce ἔσθειν σπανίως καὶ, εἴπερ dpa, οἱ ποιηταί), has 
sometimes, although not very strongly attested, been adopted 
into the text: Luke xxii. 30 ἔσθητε, Mark i. 6 Tdf. [Treg.] 
ἔσθων. Yet the form is found also in the O. T.: Lev. xvii. 10, 
13; Sir. xx. 16, etc. [cf. Tdf.N. T. ed. 7 Proleg. p. il]. 

Instead of the Attic Fut. ἔδομαι the N. T. employs the anal- 
ogous form φάγομαι, as Jas. v. 3 (ἔσται καὶ φάγεται), Rev. 
xvii. 16 (in the midst of Futures), Luke xiv. 15 (μακάριος ὃς 
φάγεται, Vulg. manducabit), and with a new anomaly in the 
2d Pers. Sing. φάγεσαι, Luke xvii. 8 (Micah vi. 14, etc.). 
See p. 42. 

εὑρίσκω. On the Alexandrian Aorist see p. 40, on the 
augment p. 84, and on the formerly received readings εὑρήσηῃς, 
-σωμεν p. 36. 

ἔχω. On εἶχαν 8668 p. 40, εἴχοσαν p. 43. On the augment of ἀνέχομαι 
see p. 3d. 


am. This verb, common in the N. T., has both forms of 
the Future: ζήσω John v. 25; 2 Cor. xiii. 4 etc. and ζήσομαι 
Matt. iv. 4 etc., see the lexicons. The Future and the Aorist 
ἔζησα have also the signification of ava ζῆν come to life (again) 
in Matt. ix. 18; Rom. xiv. 9; Rev. xx. 4,5; and in Luke xv. 


ANOMALOUS VERBS. 59 


24, 82 cod. B [and in vs. 32 x also, which Tdf. and Treg agree 
with] has ἔζησεν instead of the received ἀνέζησεν. 

Instead of the Imperf. 1st Pers. Sing. ἔζων, Rom. vii. 9, cod. 
B exhibits ἔζην ---- a form analogous in structure to ἔζη, ζῆθι, 
ζῆναι; hence it early became current and has been often pre- 
served in the manuscripts of Attic authors even. Respecting 
its doubtful Attic currency and the contradictory statements 
of the Atticists, see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. under ζάω, and Buttm. 
Ausf. Sprachl. § 114. 

ἡγέομαι. The Perf. ἥγημαι ἴῃ Phil. iii. 7, taken by some as 
a Pres., stands plainly in antithesis to the following ἡγοῦμαι. 
Cf. however Acts xxvi. 2 and Bhdy. Synt. p. 379. 

ἥκω. The Perf. 8d Pers. Plur. ἥκωσιν, very anomalous not 
only as respects form but signification also (for the Present 
has already the sense of the Perfect), Lchm. [so Tdf. Treg.] has 
adopted in Mark viii. 3, sustained by the codd. AD [x also ] 
and the translation (venerwnt). As the form does not occur 
again in the N.T., the readings ἥκουσιν (Rec.) and εἰσίν (Tdf. 
feds. 2 and 7] after cod. B) seem plainly to be mere correc- 
tions. This Perfect is one of those isolated irregularities of 
the language, occasioned by the signification and perpetuated 
by the thoroughly analogous appearance of the form (ef. 
διαπεφυλάκασι Xen. Cyr. 8, 6,3), of which examples are to 
be met with not only in deteriorating Greek but in all ages, 
especially in dialects less cultivated than the Attic. Moreover, 
the form ἧκα as Perfect has Alexandrian precedent (caper, 
-te, -ow Gen. ΧΙ. 7; xlv.16; xlvii.4; Job xvi. 22; Sus. 
52, etc.), and is found elsewhere also in writers of the κοινή ; 
see Steph. Thesaur.; Lob. ad Phryn.; Ep. Clem. 1, 12, etc. 

Respecting the Subjunc. ἥξῃ see p. 36. 

ἡττάομαι. The Ionic form of the 180 Aor. Pass. (but with the 
augment) ἡσσώθητε for ἡττήθητε (A) has been received by Lchm. 
[Treg.] after a few mss. [δὲ also] in 2 Cor. xii. 18. 

θάλλω. The 2d Aor. ἀνεθάλετε, very rare elsewhere or 
even doubtful (Lob. Paral. p. 557), is used by Paul, Phil. iv. 
10, as also sometimes in the O. T., Ps. xxviii. 7; Sap. iv. 4; 
Sir. xlvi. 12. 


θαυμάζω. The Passive which elsewhere means only to be won- 
dered at (2 Thess. i. 10) is used in the Apocalypse quite like a depo- 
nent Pass.: Aor. ἐθαυμάσθη wondered, Fut. θαυμασθήσονται, xiii. 3 
[Tdf. reads ἐθαύμασεν dAnetc.|; xvii. 8 [Tdf. Treg. read θαυμάσονται]. 


52 


53 


60 ANOMALOUS VERBS. 


θνήσκω. The syncopated form τεθνάναι is given Acts xiv. 
19 by Tdf. [ed. 2; but in eds. 7 and 8 τεθνηκέναι with Lchm. 
Treg. ]. 

θύω. On ἐθύθην see p. 7. 


(t€w) καθίξζω. Respecting the Future see p. 37. 

This verb is used by the N. T. writers in both senses (set, 
and seat one’s self). The Middle occurs only twice in the 
Future, and that too in the 2d Pers. Plur. καθίσεσθε, Luke 
xxii. 30; Matt. xix. 28. 

Further, since the ideas fo sit and to seat one’s self pass over 
into each other variously, the common N. T. uses of all these 
related verbs may be grouped as follows: 

καθίζω set, καθίσω. καθιῶ, etc. 

καθίζω seat one’s self, Fut. καθίσω, -ιῷ (2d Pers. Plur. 
καθίσεσθε), Aor. ἐκάθισα. The Perf. κεκάθικα (Heb. xii. 
2.) synonymous with 

κάθημαι sit (Imperat. κάθου see p. 49, Infin. καθῆσθαι, 
Partic. καθήμενος and καθεζόμενος), Imperf. ἐκαθήμην and 
éxabefounv. The Future in this sense is supplied by the 
Fut. of καθίζω. 

ἱκνέομαι appears only once, in the 3d Pers. Sing. of the 2d 
Aor. ἀφίκετο Rom. xvi. 19. 

καίω. The 2d Aor. Pass. is κατεκάην, Rev. viii. T; hence 
Fut. Pass. κατακαήσομαι 1 Cor. iii. 15; 2 Pet. iii. 10, but 
also καυθήσομαι Rev. xviii. 8. Respecting καυθήσωμαι (1 Cor. 
xiii. 8) see p. 86. The Fut. Act. is regularly καύσω, Rev. xvii. 
16. But the Partic. καυσούμενα, 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12, belongs to 
Kavoow, see the lexicons... 

Kap pve see μύω p. 62. 

κεράννυμι. The Perf. Pass. κεκέρασμαι occurs Rev. xiv. 
10 ; Heb. iv.2 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.,sox] (where Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] 
reads Kexpapévos ), 

κερδαίνω. The formation (xepdjcopar) Aor. ἐκέρδησα is 
almost the only one in use in the N. T.: Matt. xviii. 15, ete. 
Accordingly the Aor. Subjunc. κερδάνω 1 Cor. ix. 21, although 
the other form (xepdjcw) is used four times in the same con- 
nection either just before or afterwards, is surprising, but 
established by the ss. [x also]. 

κλαίω. Fut. 2d Pers. Plur. κλαύσετε Luke vi. 25; John 


ANOMALOUS VERBS. 61 


xvi. 20, 8d Pers. Plur. κλαύσονται Rev. xviii. 9, as in the case 
of ἀκούω, see p. 53; (οἷ, Origen on Luke vi. 25 πενθήσουσι καὶ 
κλαύσονται). 

κράξω with long a (Herodian π. μον. p. 23), hence κρᾶζον 


Gal. iv. 6 (ef. Lob. Parall. p. 408), and 2d Perf. κέκραγα ir — 


sense of Pres. (John i. 15 μαρτυρεῖ καὶ κέκραγεν), never has 
[ (except ἀν-έκρωγον Luke xxiii. 18 Tdf.Treg.)] the 2d Aor., but 
always, as in later writers, the Ist ἔκραξα Matt. viii. 29 etc. The 
Future occurs only once: Luke xix. 40. But since the author- 
ities there are divided between κεκράξονται A, κράξουσιν B [x], 
κράξονται 1), and further, in favor of the first the usage of the 
Sept. (Ps. Ixv. 14 etc.) [where κράξουσι is nowhere found ; see 
Tdf. crit. com. in Luc. 1.0.1 and the perhaps mutilated reading 
of cod. D may be adduced, while the authority of the [two] 
oldest ms[s.] and the usage of later authors (Lob.’s note in 
Buttm. Ausf. Sprachl. II. 2280 weigh in favor of the second, a 
decision cannot be given with confidence in a case which stands 
so by itself. Among modern editors Lchm. has given the pref- 
erence to the common form κεκράξονται, Tdf. [Treg.] to the 
reading xpafovow. With xpafov may be compared προςπλᾶζον 
Il. μ, 285, — as according to the intimations of Lobeck (in the 
Ausf. Sprachl. Il. 268) it is perhaps more correctly written. 
Kpepavevvut. From the Middle κρέμαμαι we have in Luke 
xix. 48 the regular éefexpéuaro. The oldest ms[s.], however, 
read instead é£expéuero, probably not a clerical error, and cer- 
tainly no more anomalous than ἐξέδετο, διεδίδετο (see δίδωμι 
Ρ. 47). But on account of the little support which other 
codices give it, this rare form, which occurs besides only here 
and there in Mss., has not been adopted by the editors [except 
Tdf.]. 


κρύπτω. See p. 40. 


κτείνω. Besides this form there exist two other by-forms : 


of the Pres.: the most common ἀποκτέννω with a doubling of 
the liquid, after the Aeolic fashion (see Ahrens, Dial. Aeol. 
ρ. 52sq.), Matt.x.28; Luke xii. 4; Rev. vi. 11, and ἀποκταίνω, 
which is said to have been the Doric spelling (id. Dial. Dor. 
p. 186), 2 Cor. iii. 6; Rev. xiii. 10. Yet this last form, which 
is but weakly attested by the Mss., has with reason not been 
adopted by Tdf. [or Treg.], and seems, if it was really the 
original reading, to be less a (doubtful) Dorism, than to rest 


54 


62 ANOMALOUS VERBS. 


upon an erroneous spelling of the word, occasioned by the 
common Aorist ἀπεκτάνθην (see p. 41) and the familier poetic 
forms ἔκταν, κτανέω, etc. 

(κύων) ἀποκύω or ἀποκυέω (forms between which no dif- 
ference can be found in Greek authors as respects signification, 
see Lob. ad Aj. p. 103) has, where it occurs, the transitive 
meaning, bear, bring forth, and forms the Aor. ἀπεκύησα Jas. 
i. 15,18. Recent editors accentuate ἀποκύει. 

λαμβάνω. In spelling this verb the recent editors have 
everywhere introduced the Alexandrian mode with μ (Sturz, 
p. 180) ; thus, Fut. λήμψομαι Acts i. 8 etc., Aor. Pass. ἐλήμφθην 
Mark xvi. 19 etc. In the same way in derivatives Ajpris, 
ἀνα- ἀντι- μετα- πρόςλημψις, προςωπολημπτέω, etc. 

The 2d Aor. Imperat. λάβε, according to the uniform diree- 
tion of the old grammarians (e.g. Jo. Alex. p. 21 τὸ λαβέ καὶ ἰδέ 
ὀξυνόμενα ἀττικά ἐστι" TA γὰρ κοινὰ τούτων βαρύνεται), must, 
like ἴδε, be accented as paroxytone in the N.T.: Rey. x. 8, 9; 
John i. 47, ete. 

Adoxw. The 1st Aor. ἐλάκησεν occurs once, Acts i. 18. 

λείπω has as usual the 2d Aor., and only once the 1st Aor. 
καταλείψαντες Acts vi. 2. ihe Gollinteral form λυμττάνω occurs 
1 Pet. ii. 21. 

μεθύω and μεθύσκομαι are both united without any 
important difference of meaning: 1 Thess. v. 7 οἱ μεθυσκόμενοι 
νυκτὸς μεθύουσιν. Aor. Pass. ἐμεθύσθην Rev. xvii. 2. 

(μέλ ων μεταμέλομαι, Fut. μεταμεληθήσομαι Heb. vii. 21 (in 
quotation), Aor. μετεμελήθην. On the other hand, from ἐπεμέ- 
Aouat we have the Fut. ἐπιμελήσομαι 1 Tim. iii. 5. 

μιαίνω. Respecting the Perf. Pass. see p. 41. 


55 (μύω). The abbreviated (after the Epic fashion, B. ὃ 117 
N. 2; H.§ 73D; Ὁ. 8 136; D.§ 140; J.§19.) compound 
καμμύω for καταμύω, which is severely censured by Phrynichus 
(sub voce ), appears, according to the words of the same gram- 
marian, to have passed over into somewhat general use in prose 
from the time of the comic poet Alexis. At any rate the 
Alexandrians employ it frequently (Isa. xxix. 10; xxxiii. 15; 
vi. 10),! and from this last passage it passed over into the N. T. 
(Matt. xiii. 15; Acts xxviii. 27). 

1 Whether in Lem. iii. 43 we should accent’ καμμῦσαι after the poetic fashion, or 
καμμύσαι as commonly, may be doubtful. Yet in the case of a word manifestly 


ANOMALOUS VERBS. 68 


νίξω. Only the other Present νέπτω is in use in the 
N. T. (Matt. xv. 2 ete.) as in the Sept. (Hx. xxx. 18; 2 Chron. 
iv. 6). 

(vioow) κατανύσσω forms, quite according to analogy, 
a 2d Aor. Pass. κατενύγην Acts ii. 37, which is not in use by 
the earlier writers, but frequent in the O. T.: Gen. xxxiv. 7, 
etc. This Aorist has everywhere the ethical sense; Hesych.: 
κατενύγησαν., ἐλυπήθησαν ; Suidas sub voce. 

€vpéw. On the by-form ξυράω 1 Cor. xi. 6, see Etym. Magn. sub 
voce ; Lob. on the Ajax p. 181; and under ἐλεέω p. 57. 

(otyw) ἀνοίγω. The variations in the form of this very 
common verb are very great, both in the mss. and in the dif- 
ferent editions. In order to get a summary view of the forms 
we will bring them together as given in Lchm.’s text which 
here departs in many respects from the Rec. : Future regularly 
ἀνοίξω Matt. xiii. 35; Isr Aorist 7v0+&a— John ix. 17, 21, 
26, 30,32; Acts v.19; ix. 40; xii. 14; xiv. 27; Rev. through- 
out, (Subjunc. ἀνοίξω Luke xii. 36 etc., Imperat. ἄνοιξον xiii. 25, 
Infin. ἀνοῖξαι Acts xxvi. 18 etc., Partic. ἀνοίξας Matt. v. 2, etc.) 
—and avéwéa John ix. 14 (and frequently as a variant, as 
ix. 80 etc.) ; 2p PERFECT in an intransitive sense ἀνέῳγα 
1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (Partic. ἀνεῳγότα John i. 52). 
Passive: Ist Aor. nvoly@nv Rev. xx. 12, ἀνεῴχθην Luke 
i, 64, and with double (threefold) augment ἠνεῴχθην Matt. 
iii. 16; ix. 30; John ix.10; Acts xvi. 26 CInfin. ἀνεῳχθῆναι 
Luke iii. 21 with retention of the Augment, as in ἄγνυμι, which 
see); Ist Fur. ἀνοιχθήσομαι Luke xi. 10; 2D Aor. ἠνοίγην 
(was opened, or opened itself) Acts xii. 10; Rev. xv. 5; xi. 
19 (Subjunc. ἀνουγῶσιν Matt. xx. 33); 2p Fur. ἀνοιγήσομαι 
Matt. vii. 7; Luke xi. 9; Perr. Partic. ἀνεῳγμένος Rev. 
iv. 1; Acts x. 11 etc.; 2 Cor. ii. 12, ἠνεῳγμένος Acts ix. 8; 
Rev. x. 2, 8; xix. 11, and διηνοιγ μένος Acts vii. 56 (also in 
ix. 8 ἠνοιγμένος according to A [δὲ ; adopted by Tdf.]). More- 
over, we find several times in two of the oldest mss. (A B) the 
1st Aor. Act. with the double augment ἠνέῳ ξε John ix. 17, 
21, 82 [but not so cod. Sin.], which has at least as much inter- 
nal probability as ἠνεῴχθην etc. above. Of course, where the 
MSS. vary, different editors have decided in many passages now in 


borrowed from the language of poetry the former accentuation is probably to be 
preferred. 


56 


7 


64 ANOMALOUS VERBS. 


favor of one reading and now in favor of another. As, however, 
the number of forms in use, which is all we are here concerned 
with, is the same (Tdf. agrees in the main with Lchm.), we 
will leave disagreements respecting particular instances to the 
reader’s own observation. 
-οἰκτείρω: Fut. οἰκτειρήσω Rom. ix. 15 (as in the Sept. 
where we find also Aor. Imperat. οἰκτείρησον Ps. iv. 2). 

(ὄλλυμ.ι) ἀπόλλυμι. For the collateral form of the Pres. 
in vw see p. 45. The Future Active is commonly ἀπολέσω 
Matt. xxi. 41 etc.; on the other hand, only once ἀπολῶ 1 Cor. 
i. 19, in a quotation from the O.T. In the Middle the Fut. is 
always ἀπολοῦμαι Matt. xxvi. 52; Rom. ii. 12; Matt. ix. 17 
Tdf. [eds. 2, 1]. 

ὁμείρομαι is a by-form of ἱμείρομαι, given only in 1 Thess. ii. 8 
(and a few times in the versions of the O. T.), but established by the 
Mss., and also attested by Hesychius and Photius sub voce. See 
Steph. Thesaurus, and Fritzsche on Mark, excurs. tert. p. 792. 

ὄμνυμι. Respecting the form in ὕω see p. 45. 


opdw. The N.T. agrees in the main with the Attic use 
of this verb, excepting the forms of the Alexandrian Aor. (see 
Ρ. 89) and the accentuation ide (see under λαμβάνω p. 62). 
On isolated cases like προορώμην see p. 34; on the Subjune. 
ὄψησθε see p. 36. The mode of spelling the Perf. (employed 
in Attic poetry, B. p. 251 Note +; H. § 450, 4; C. § 50) 
ἑόρακα is often exhibited by the mss., but has not been received 
by the editors before Tdf., who in his Tth ed. introduced it 
several times, e.g. Luke ix. 36; John ix. 37, [but in ed. 8 ap- 
pears to have returned to the usual form, — yet noé in Col. ii. 
181. The Passive ὥφθην, ὀφθήσομαι commonly means fo 
appear (apparere) cf. p. 52. Respecting ἐδού see p. 70. 

παίξω. The Fut. Mid. παίξομαι is the common form in 
the Alexandrian dialect (Ezek. xxii.5; Hab. i. 10), as with 
later writers in general (Luc. Dial. Deor. 4,3; Apoll. Lex. 
Hom. under μωμήσονται) ; the Future occurs but once in the 
N.T., and then (according to B. § 113, N. 7) in the Active form 
ἐμπαίξουσιν Mark x. 34, which is not unknown to the Sept. 
also (Isa xxxiii.4). The other tenses also occur in the gut- 
tural formation : ἔπαιξα, ἐπαίχθην, etc., Matt. xxvii. 81; ii. 16; 
Luke xviii. 32, etc. 

παύω. The 2d Fut. Pass. of this verb is found once (Rev. 


ANOMALOUS VERBS. 65 


xiv. 13) formed after the analogy of καίω (xatow, ἐκάην) 
ἀναπαήσονται. (Yet according to codd. Vat. and Sin. we 
must so read also in Luke x. 6 [Tdf.]; the Aor. παῆναι occurs 
twice in Hermas: (Vis. 1,3; 8, 9 Sin.).) That this form, 
unparalleled in earlier authors, was actually current in the 
common speech (ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ) is attested by Choerob. in 
Anecd. Bekk. p. 13824, where it is used as an example by the 
side of éxanv and ἐχάρην. Other examples in very late Greek 
may be seen in Steph. Thesaur. under παύω. But in Rev. vi. 
11 we have again the regular ἀναπαύσονται [so Lchm. in ed. 
min., Ταῦ, eds. 2,7; but now Lchm. Tdf. Treg. -cwvta: ; so x]. 

The verbal adjective (παυστός, καταπαυστός) with a@ priv. 
ἀκατάπαυσπτος is read by most editions in 2 Pet. ii. 14. 
Lehm., however, has adopted instead the reading of codd. 
AB: ἀκαταπάστους. To explain the word in this form asa 
verbal from παύω would conflict with all analogy, and the 
sense forbids us to derive it from πάσσω (conspergo). Hence 
Tdf. [so Treg.] has adopted ἀκαταπαύστους, with codd. [x] C 
and the Rec. 

πέτομαιν occurs only in the Apocalypse, and in the forms 
πετόμενος (Rec. πετώμενος) and πέτηται, xiv. 6 [δὲ here 
meTapevov |, etc. 


1 Since, however, the existence of the a in the penult in two of the oldest mss 
weighs heavily against this, it may be that the error is to be found elsewhere 
Perhaps it is not the second a, but the first, that is written by mistake, and arose 
from the preceding καὶ, so that the word was originally katamdorous, a verbal 
which occurs elsewhere also (see Stephanus, Thesaur.), formed regularly from κατα- 
πάσσω (frequent in the Sept.), and here has the meaning spotted, soiled, which then 
corresponds very well with the preceding μεστούς (ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς 
μοιχαλίδος καὶ καταπάστους Guaptias). Suidassub voce and the Scholiast on Arist. 
Eq. 502 expressly render κατάπαστος by κατάμεστος, πλήρης, πεποικιλμένος, and in 
the same way καταπάσω by καταποικιλῷ, πληρώσω. Hesychius, who has so many 
biblical terms, has neither ἀκατάπαυστος nor ἀκατάπαστος, but he has the gloss 
κατάπαστος πεποικιλμένος. The unintelligible ἀκαταὶ dorouvs, having once arisen by 
a clerical blunder, was easily corrected into ἀκαταπαύστους, and naturally passed 
over in this form into most of the later Mss. Finally, as respects the derivation 
of the word ἀκατάπαστος from the ancient IMAOMAI (whence the poetic πάσασθαι 
to taste, eat), the resulting meaning would be appropriate (insatiable), but the deri- 
vation is opposed by the following considerations: (1) that the word in this form 
* does not occur again in all Greek literature; (2) that even the underlying verb 
was as good as obsolete, and at the most was only sought out by imitative poets 
as an archaic term; (3) that it was used at no time by any author in composi- 
tion with κατά ; (4) that a N. T. writer should coin so poetic a word, and that 
the ancient grammarians, lexicographers, commentators should pass over in 
complete silence a term so unusual and so much needing explanation. 

9 


59 


66 ANOMALOUS VERBS. 


πίμπλημι occurs but once in the Participle of the un- 
Attic form in dw: ἐμπιπλῶν Acts xiv. 17. Cf. ἵστημι p. 44 sq. 

πιέζω. Of this form we find only the Perf. Pass. Partie. 
πεπιεσμένος, Luke vi. 88; in all other instances it has been 
supplanted by the Doric form with @ for e (which in the Doric 
dialect has the palatal characteristic: mid&@ ete., see Ahrens, 
Dial. Dor. p. 116), but with the ordinary inflection Fut. πιάσω, 
Aor. ἐπίασα, πιάσαι, Pass. ἐπιάσθην, John vii. 30 ete. 

πίνω never has the later Future πιοῦμαι, but the Attic 
πίομαι Matt. xx. 23; Mark x. 39; Rev. xiv. 10, 2d Pers. πίεσαι 
Luke xvii. 8, see ἐσθίω p. 58. The Aor. Imperat. again is ac- 
cording to, rule πίε Luke xii. 19, Infin. as usual πιεῖν. But 
besides, this Infin. is several times preserved in the form 
miv or πεῖν : least questionably in John iv. 9, probably also in 
iv. 7,10 Tdf. ['Treg.], Rev. xvi.6 Lehm. [Tdf. eds. 7,8], and not 
unfrequently as a variant in the oldest Mss., as in Matt. xxvii. 
34; Mark xv. 23; x. 88; 1 Cor. ix.4; x. 7. These forms 
(πῖν and πεῖν) have now been established in many passages by 
the most recent collations of B, as well as by cod. Sin. That 
this anomalous Infin. actually existed, at least in the popular 
speech, is established by other testimony also, besides those Ms. 
authorities. Thus the Grammarian Herodian (in Herm. de 
Emend. rat. p. 317) expressly rejects the form vei as corrupt 
(ἁμαρτάνουσιν οἱ λέγοντες ἱπεῖν βούλομαι’ μονοσυλλάβως, δέον 
λέγειν πιεῖν δισυλλάβως. μόνως γὰρ οὕτως καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἀρ- 
Aaiow πᾶσιν εἴρηται), and an epigram on the grammarians in 
Anthol. Pal. xi. 140 employs, apparently with design, this 
form which they censured (οἷς οὐ σκῶμμα λέγειν, οὐ πεῖν φίλον). 
Now as respects the form itself, it has been explained —ac- 
cording as the preference is given to πεῖν or mivy—either as 
syncopated from πιεῖν, or as apocopated from iva: (like dv 
from φῦναι, see Ph. Buttm. in the Mus. Antiq. p. 248). The 
first explanation has little internal probability,! although, 
since it has appearances in its favor, it became current 
among the grammarians, and may even have occasioned the 
spelling πεῖν (so the cod. Cantabr. always). Philologically 
the other explanation has a better foundation, although no 


1 We can hardly compare with this the extremely rare dialectic absorption of 
the « before w in isolated poetic passages (βώσεσθε Apollon., cwmdw Pind.) ; see 
Ausf. Sprachl. under βιόω, II. 130. 


ANOMALOUS VERBS. 67 


Infin. πῖῆναι existed, or at least can be proved. But that the 
Aorist ἔπιον had an inclination to form syncopated Aorists is 
shown by the Imperat. wi: ; and the abbreviation of the Infin., 
used as it must have been very frequently (δός μοι πῖν, wiv βού- 
Aowar), would arise thus in the mouth of the people most natu- 
rally. Modern editors of the N. T. have accordingly retained 
this spelling, and Jacobs also in his Delectus Epigr. (6. 78) has 
returned to the form wiv. [Tdf. ed. 8 everywhere reads ret. | 

πίπτω. Respecting the Alexandrian Aorist see p. 39 sq. 
But the former reading ἀνάπεσον (Rec.) or ἀνάπεσαι (Grsb.) 
is now changed into the common Imperative form ἀνάπεσε 
Luke xiv. 10; xvii. 7. 

péo has in the Future pevow John vii. 38; in the Aorist, as 
in Attic (éppinv), Subjunc. παραρυῶμεν Heb. ii.1. Cf. p. 32. 

σαλπίζω, see p. 37. 

(σκέπτομαι) ἐπισκέπτομαι the writers of the Old Test. and 
the New are fond of using in the Pres. and Imperf.; see the 
lexicons. 

otTnpica, see p. 36. 

(ατορέννυμι) in the N. T. forms only from the other form, 
στρώννυμι, the Aor. ἔστρωσα, Perf. Pass. ἔστρωμαι, Aor. Pass. 
ἐστρώθην. On στρωννύω see p. 45. 

τυγχάνω. The Perf. in later writers is commonly τέ- 
tevya instead of τετύχηκα (Lob. ad Phryn. p. 895; Sturz, 
Dial. Alex. p. 198) and accordingly in the Sept. also: Job vii. 
2, etc. This was formerly the reading also in Heb. viii. 6, 
but now instead a third form has been adopted from mss. [Sin. 
also] into the text: τέτυχεν. As this form was apparently 
altogether unknown to the grammarians, Lobeck, as above, 
and Dind., in the Thesaurus of Steph., regard it as a mistake 
of the scribes, and it has been on this account expunged by 
the editors in classic authors, often it must be confessed 
against all ms. authority (e.g. Diod. 12, 17), and commonly 
changed into rétevya. In the language of the N. T. the un- 
usual and even erroneous (B. ὃ 97,4 p. 184) form of the 
Perfect must always be allowed to stand. 

gaivw. Respecting ἔφανα see p. 41. 

φαύσκω, a word formed from the stem da (to shine) after 
the manner of iteratives, and used only in compounds (Job 
xx¥. 5 etc.), to which, quite according to analogy, the form θυ 


68 ANOMALOUS VERBS. 


(hatcw) ἐπιφαύσει Eph. v. 14 is referred. In the Ο. T. we 
find frequently the Aor. διέφαυσε, διαφαύσῃ (6.8. ἕως διαφαύσῃ 
ἡμέρα 1 Sam. xiv. 86 etc.). This rare word, which however 
is found even in Herodotus (9, 45), was wholly unknown to 
Attic authors. 

In a few passages (Matt. xxviii. 1; Luke xxiii. 54) it has 
the form ἐπιφώσκω, ---- in both instances of day-break. Cf. the 
Lat. illucesco. 

φέρω. On ἤνεγκον and ἤνεγκα see p. 39. Besides the forms 
of the ist Aor. usual also in Attic, we find most frequently 
the Partic. ἐνέγκας (Luke xv. 23 etc. )» which in the N. T. has 
completely supplanted the other in dv, as on the other hand 
the Infin. ἐνεγκεῖν (Jude 9 etc.) has superseded that in a, 
which is still read only in 1 Pet. ii.5. The 1st Pers. ἤνεγκα 
is found Acts xxvi. 10 etc., Imperat. προςένεγκον Matt. viii. 4 
(-xe Rec.). 

φθάνω. The Aorist ἔφθην is not in use, but only 1st Aor. 
ἔφθασα: Matt. xii. 28 ete. 

φύω. As the Aor. ἔφυν has been wholly superseded in the 
language of the N. T. by the later 2d Aor. Pass. ἐφύην (hence 
φυέν, συμφυεῖσαι Luke viii. 6, 7, 8), the Subjunc. must be 
circumflexed ἐκφυῇ Matt. xxiv. 82; Mark xiii. 28 (ἐκφύῃ Rec. 
[Tdf.]). Cf. δύω p. 56. 

χαίρω. The Fut. is always χαρήσομαι Luke i. 14 etc., as 
in the Sept., which, however, in composition always employs 
the regularly formed yet elsewhere unheard of form in οῦμαι, 
as KaTa-, ἐπιχαροῦμαι. 

xéw. Respecting the Imperative ἐκχέετε see p. 44. The 
Future, after the manner of the, so-called Attic Futures or of 
the Fut. of liquid verbs (ef. Aor. ἔχεαν, is circumflexed: ἐκχεῶ 
Acts ii. 17, 18 in an O.T. citation (Joel iii. 1sq.). We are pre- 
vented from accenting it é«yéw, as in Attic, on the one hand 
by the testimony of the ancient grammarians (Choerob. in An. 
Bekk. p. 1290 ; Cram. IV. p. 194; Etym. Magn. sub yéw) who 
adduce it as an example of a second Future (τὸ ἐκχεῶ δευτέρου 
μέλλοντος οἷον Kal τὸ κατακλιεῖς παρ᾽ Εὐπόλιδι k.7.r.) ; On the 
other hand, especially by the further inflection of χεῶ : χεεῖς, 
χεεῖ, χεεῖτε, χεοῦσιν, ---- forms which it so happens, indeed, 
cannot be brought forward from the N. T., but are very frequent 
in the Serpt., as Ex. iv. 9; xxx.19; Lev. iv. 12; Num. xix. 17; 


ADVERBS. 69 


Deut. xii. 16; 2 Kings xxiv. 4, ete. ᾿Εκχεῖται in Matt. ix. 17 
is Pres.; probably also in Mark ii. 22 [yet dropped here by 
Tdf. Treg. ]. 

The Aor. Pass. ἐχέθην, so common in later writers (Lob. 
Parerg. p. 732), has not yet been found either in the O. T. or 
the New, but always éyv@nv, χυθήσομαι, as in the Perf. 
κέχυται. On account of this last form we often find χύω given 
in the lexicons as a form of the Present; but it never occurs, 
at least in the N. T., but instead (χύνω) συνέχυνεν Acts ix. 22, 
or, after the Aeolic mode of writing sometimes, χύννω, (on this 
form used in codd. Vat. and Sin. see Tdf. N. T. Vat. pref. p. 
xxx Note!; [N. T. ed. 7, Prol. p. xlviii]) ἐκχυννόμενος Matt. 
Xxliil. 85; xxvi. 28 and the parallel passages, συγχύννεται 
Acts xxi. 81 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.]; xxii. 20. Cf. «révyw under 
κτείνω, p. 61. 

ψύχω. 2d Fut. Pass. ψυγήσομαι, Matt. xxiv. 12. 

ὧθ ἕω in the historic tenses loses again the syllabic augment, 
ἐξῶσεν, ἀπώσατο Acts vii. 27, 39, 45; Rom. xi. 1, 2, and so 
also in the Sept. ἀπώσθην Ps. Ixxxvii. (1xxxviii.) 6, ἀπῶσμαι 
Jonahii. 5 etc. This occurs sometimes also in earlier writers, 
see Poppo on Thue. 2, 84. 

ὠνέομαι does the same: ὠνήσατο Acts Vii. 16. 


ADVERBS. 
Β. §115, N. 8; H. ὃ 225 sq.; C. § 880 5ᾳ.; D. $ 260sq.; J. § 824. 

Lachmann writes all adverbs, if they arose from the Dative 
of even an obsolete noun, — as λάθρα Matt. i. 19, εἰκῆ Col. ii. 
18, πάντη Acts xxiv. 8, κρυφῆ Eph. v. 12,— again with the. 
subscript, [so Treg. in the case of πάντῃ] ; cf. B. § 116, Note 
8 p. 272; Ο. 8109. Inthe mss. both modes were used. See 
Bast. ad Greg. Cor. p. 719, and Cobet,N. T. pref. p. 12, [Tdf. 
ed. 7, Prol. p. xii]. 


B. § 115,5; H. § 228; C. § 263; D. 8.282; J. § 141. 

Adverbs in ws derived from the usual forms of comparison, 
accordingly in tépws (tatws) dtws (which, moreover, in ear- 
lier authors also are not uncommon, see the list in Matthia’s 
Greek Gram. ὃ 262), occur also in the N. T. Thus always 

περισσοτέρως in Paul (Gal. i. 14 etc.), also in Heb. ii. 1, 
σπουδαιοτέρως Phil. ii. 28, the phrase ἐσχάτως ἔχειν Mark v. 23. 
Iixamples of the commor adverbial form of the comparative 


61 


62 


70 PARTICLES OF PLACE. 


in τερὺν are, περισσότερον Heb. vi. 17; vii. 15; Mark vii. 36, 
ἐκτενέστερον Luke xxii. 44, κε μυψότερον John iv. 52, πορρώτερον 
(-répw Rec. [Tdf.]) Luke xxiv. 28, ἀκριβέστερον Acts xxiv. 22, 
ἀνώτερον Heb. x. 8, etc.; (but the present reading in Acts xxiv. 
10 is εὐθύμως instead of εὐθυμότερον, and διπλότερον in Matt. 
xxiii. 15 is an adjective; cf. p. 27). 

The other form of comparison in wy, ἑστὸς always forms its 
adverbs in the usual way: ἧττον, ἔλαττον, κάλλιον, βέλτιον, 
ἄσσον, τάχιον (see p. 27), τάχιστα, etc. 


B, § 115, N. 7. 

Instead of ἰδού ecce the N. T. writers, especially John, fre- 
quently use ide; both side by side in Mark xiii. 21 Lchm. Cf. 
also §129a. 2 p. 139. Examples of ἔδε with the Plural Matt. 
xxvi. 65; of ἄγε as an Interjection Jas. iv.13; v.1. Cf. with 
ide attended by the Plur. the similar ἄφες ἴδωμεν (Matt. xxvii. 
49), on which see ὃ 189, 4 p. 189. The ordinary distinction 
between δεῦρο and δεῦτε, according to which the latter is used 
in addressing more than one (yet cf. Bttm. Lexil. II. No. 101), 
is observed in the N. T.; see Wahl. 


" PARTICLES OF PLACE. 
B. § 116; H. §§ 208. 879; C. §§ 192. 704; D. § 262; J. § 889. 

The local ending -Gev has sometimes lost its original reference 
to the question whence. Thus ἔσωθεν, ἔξωθεν, hardly differ 
any longer from the adverbs ἔσω, ἔξω ; e.g. Matt. vii. 15; Rev. 
iv. 8; v.1; and with the Article, τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν Luke xi. 39, 
40 (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 16), κυκλόθεν in circuitu Rev. iv. 8. This, 
as is well known, often occurred in the earlier language and 
the poets with the termination -Oev, -θε ; as, ὄπισθεν, ἄνευθε, 
ἔμπροσθεν, προπάροιθε, etc. From the fact that the suffix -θεν 
came to take the place thus of a mere adverbial ending we can 
explain a pleonastic combination which is frequent in the N.T., 
viz. that to such an adverb, when the reference to the question 
whence is manifest, the prepositions ἀπό and ἐκ are still pre- 
fixed; e.g. ἀπὸ μακρόθεν, ἀπ᾽ ἄνωθεν, ἐκ παιδιόθεν Matt. xxvi. 
58; xxvii. 51; Mark ix. 21, etc., — combinations, however, 
which came into use very early, especially with poets (ἀπ᾽ 
οὐρανόθεν Hom.). 

A strict observance of grammatica accuracy in the employ- 
ment of the local particles is not to 78 expected of the N. T 


PARTICLES OF PLACE. ΤΊ 


writers. A portion of these irregularities may be removed, to 
be sure, in some syntactical way, as e.g. the expression ἄξων 
τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ὄντας (Acts xxii. 5) by the attractive power of 
ἄξων (Β. ὃ 151, 1. 8); but in general it does not accord with the 
language of the N. T. to explain all the passages of the sort in 
such artificial ways. On the contrary, the assumption of a 
certain inaccuracy in the employment of such particles seems 
to be the more admissible, as even the earlier prose writers by 
no means always adhered rigorously to the rule. And in 
particular, particles of rest as ἐκεῖ, ποῦ, οὗ, ὅπου, ἐνθάδε are 
constantly connected with verbs of motion in answer to 
the question whither, because the particles ποῖ, ὅποι, etc. seem 
to have passed wholly out of use, (a fact which explains the 
frequent corruption of these particles in the texts of Attic 
writers, and the instructions of Phrynichus ed. Lob. p. 43); as, 
ποῦ, ὅπου ὑπάγει, ἐκεῖ ἀπῆλθεν, ἐλθὲ EvOdSe,( with which the usage 
of earlier authors as given in Β. § 116, 3 Note ¢ and 7 Note 
may be compared). It is likewise undeniable that ὧδε, orig- 
inally a particle having reference to manner, has in the N. T. 
already assumed completely a local signification : and that, too, 


not merely of rest, here, but, like all those previously mentioned, 


of direction also, hither,—a usage of which the beginnings can 
be traced very early (see B. ὃ 149, 1 p. 429). It is indeed 
quite proper to be extremely abstemious in employing this 
method of explaining classic authors, but to insist on observing 
the same restraint in reference to all passages of the N. T. 
would be to inerease the difficulties of interpretation unneces- 
sarily, and without any considerable gain either philological or 
logical. Examples of this local use of ὧδε (expressly censured 
by the old grammarians) occur, especially in the gospels, very 
frequently, as e.g. in Matt. xvi. 28; xvii. 4; viii. 29; xxii. 12; 


xiv. 8, 18, etc. ; and often in Hermas the expressions ὧδε κακεῖ, 


ὧδε κακεῖσε are met with (Simil. 6.1; Mand. 5. 2, ete.). 

Finally, compare with the general tenor of these remarks the 
N. T. use of the two prepositions which correspond most nat- 
urally to the two ideas of rest and motion (whither), viz. & 
and eis, as given in the Syntax ὃ 147, pp. 328, 332 sq. 


63 


64 


72 CHANGES OF FORM IN PARTICLES. ANASTROPHE. 


CHANGES oF Form IN PARTICLES. ANASTROPHE. 
B. §117,2. | 


Of the three forms ἐάν, ἤν, ἄν, the first is used almost ex- 
clusively ; — ἄν is very rare indeed, or doubtful, John xiii. 20; 
xvi. 23; xx. 23 Ταῦ, [Treg.], ἤν not found at all. 

Although only the un-Attic form of the adverb ἔσω (for 
εἴσω.) is in use, yet the preposition is written only εἰς never ἐς. 
Instead of χθές modern editors have everywhere substituted 
the (Hellenistic) form éy@és, John iv. 52 ete. 

Respecting ἕνεκεν before consonants see p. 10. 


B. §117, N. 1; H. §872; Ὁ. § 619; J. § 428, 


Instead of ἄν the form ἐάν is frequently found. Yet this 
interchange is not exactly arbitrary, since on comparing the 
passages it will be found that it occurs only in relative clauses 
with the Subjunctive : in clauses, therefore, of a general nature 
which (according to B. ὃ 139, 3) include within themselves 
the supposition expressed by ἐάν, and allow themselves without 
violence to be transformed into such conditional clauses. This 
ἐάν, however, continually alternates with ἄν, and in printed 
editions there is no agreement in this particular. Since ex- 
amples of this manner of writing the word abound in all parts 
of the N. T., it may suffice here to illustrate what has been 
said by one or two cases: as Matt. xvi. 19 ὃ ἂν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς 
γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς 
γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τ. ο. ; likewise vs. 25; John xv. 7 ὃ ἂν 
θέλητε Lchm. ἐὰν Tdf. [Treg.], etc. In the mss. of other 
Greek writers, too, this ἐάν is found only in similar clauses, 
see Jacobs ad Achil. Tat. p. 130, 7; and the frequent occur- 
rence of this interchange warrants us in inferring the existence 
of this always erroneous (yet not altogether unfounded) mode 


᾿ οὗ writing the word, at least in later authors. 


| B. 8117, 8, 2); H. $615; C. $785; J. § 68, Obs. 3, 

This second case of anastrophe (i.e. when the primitive 
dissyllabic prepositions stand alone instead of a compound of 
εἶναι.) also occurs in the N. T. in the use of é for ἔνεστι: 
Cor. vi. 5; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11; Jas. i. 17. 

The words οὐαί, odd, ἔα occur in the N. T. as Interjections. 


FCRMATION OF WORDS, 73 


Formation or Worps. 
B. $119; H. $452 sqq.; C. 8 869 sqq.; Ὁ. § 854 sqq.; J. 8 829 sqq. 

_B.§ 119, m. 19. Since in verbal Substantives in μα the 
long vowel belongs t> the earlier writers, the short vowel to 
the later (cf. Cobet’s N. T. pref. p. 50), we ought in the N. T. 
to write uniformly κρίμα (not κρῖμαλ ; so cod. Vat., though 
very often writing xpevw, constantly writes xpyua, The form 
αἰτιώματα (Sin. also) for αἰτιάματα, Acts xxv. 7, is erroneously 
formed, but unquestionable. 

On φάγος and dayos see Fritzsche on Mark, p. 790. On πειθός 
in 1 Cor. ii. 4 (very likely a corrupted passage) cf. πηγός in 
Homer. Yet probably ἐν πειθοῖ should be read, [ἐν πειθοῖς 
σοφίας λόγοις is adhered to by Lchm. Tdf. Treg.]; see the 
interpreters. 

B. § 119, m. 82. As respects substantives compounded with 
ἀρχός ruler, or derived from ἄρχω, the ending ys, according 
to the Ist Declension, is the most common, and passed over also 
into the Latin language. Thus πατριάρχης, τετράρχης ( pa- 
triarcha, tetrarcha), ἐθνάρχης, πολιτάρχης, ἀσιάρχης, and many 
others besides in the Sept. ; see the list in Winer 61 (60) and 
the lexicons. Only in the case of χιλίαρχος is the form in os the 
exclusive form ; and ἑκατοντάρχης alternates with ἑκατόνταρχος, 
even in close proximity, as in Acts xxii. 25, 26; Matt. viii. 8,13. 
Doubtful is στρατοπεδάρχης, Acts xxviii. 16, since it is wanting 
in codd. [x] AB. 

Examples from the N. T. (besides ἱερωσύνη given in B. ὃ 
119 m. 38) of words in σύνη with ὦ preceding are: ἀγαθω- 
σύνη, ἁγιωσύνη, μεγαλωσύνη, all with a short vowel preceding 
the antepenult. Instead of βασίλεια the N. T. has everywhere 
the later form (see Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 151) βασίλισσα. 

B.§ 119, m. 88. The adverbial ending / occurs only 
in the word zravoixi Acts xvi. 34, — for so the word should be 
written, although several mss. [Sin. also] give πανοικείέ. See 
Theodos. Gramm. p. 74 ed. Gttl., and among the moderns 
especially Ellendt, Lex. Soph. under dvate/ and ἀνοιμωκτί. 
According to his view, adverbs derived from words of the 2d 
Declension have the ending /, at least by preference. 

To the new formations of later Greek belong also the two 


adjectives ἐχιούσιος and περιούσιος, respecting whose doubtful 
10 


74 FORMATION OF WORDS. 


derivation and meaning ((rigen de Orat. 16: ἐπιούσιος ἔοικε 
πεπλάσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν) see the lexicons. 


Β. $121, 8; C. 8. 8866.; Ὁ. p.885; J. $345, 2. 

Among the words which in composition change the initial 
e into 7 may be reckoned the new word mpos7Avtos, so frequent 
in the later language, of which the Prep. πρός and the stem 
of ἦλθον, ἤλυθον Fut. ἐλεύσομαι, manifestly form the basis; 
hence the abstract προςήλυσις (Just. Mart.) for) προςτέχευσες 
(John Chrys.). See the lexicons, and compare the words ἔπη- 
Aus, ἐπήλυτος, ἐπήλυσις, etc. 

The practice of separating compound Names of Cities ex- 
tends, as is evident from inscriptions, down to the latest times. 
Hence in Acts xvi. 11 we should read, with all the [most] an- 
cient Mss., Νέαν πόλιν ; and so, consistently, in Col. iv. 13 ἐν 
‘Iepa πόλει (for ἱΙεραπόλει). Thus it was the uniform practice 
to say Μεγάλη πόλις, Κωνσταντίνου πόλις, “Αδριανοῦ πόλις, 
but in derivatives Μεγαλοπολίτης, Νεαπολίτης, Κωνσταντινο- 
πολίτης ; cf. on this Herodian de Adverb. p. 587 ; Cobet’s N. T. 
pref. p. 12. 


SYNTAX. 


INTRODUCTION. 


1. The language of the N. T. departs from the crdinary 
language in all that relates to the structure of clauses and 
style of expression far more than in the forms of words ;— and 
that not merely from the Attic, but also from the later common 
Greek.. The causes of this are: First, the want of classic- 
Greek training and erudition (Acts xxii. 3; 2 Cor. xi. 22; Gal. 
i. 14, ete.) which may be fairly assumed in the case of most 
of the N. T. writers; Secondly, their dependence upon the 
language of the O. T. (in particular tlfat of the Septuagint), 
as well as upon Jewish modes of thought in general (the so- 
called Hebraisms pertain, strictly speaking, all of them to the 
syntactical part of grammar); Thirdly, their new Christian 
ideas. As was remarked, however, on p. 1sq. respecting the 
Forms, so again in this particular the difference between the 
several writings composing the N. T. is not inconsiderable ; and 
it is the Book of Acts again which distinguishes itself creditably 
from all the rest by its Greek mode of expression and com- 
bination of clauses. Among the Hpistolary writings the Epistle 
to the Hebrews has most of the Greek complexion.! And the 
Apocalypse is farthest removed from the Greek diction, in con- 
sequence of its peculiar and free style of composition (of which 
we have already given an example p. 50), which often conflicts 
with all the laws of Greek syntax. 

2. Strictly speaking, in a special Grammar only those phe- 
nomena should find place which are peculiar to the department 
treated of, — in the present case, to the N. T. And this prin- 
ciple has been in general adhered toin this Grammar. In this 


1Cf. Origen in Euseb. H. E. 6, 25: ὅτι ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπιστολὴ συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως 
ἑλληνικωτέρα (i.e. than the Epp. of Paul) πᾶς ὁ ἐπιστάμενος κρίνειν φράσεων 
διαφορὰς ὁμολογήσαι ἄν. 
75 


65 


66 


67 


76 THE SUBSTANTIVE. [8 123. 


instance, however, as in all things where practical requirements 
also come into consideration, rigid consistency in carrying out 
a principle would be injurious to the whole. Frequently it 
has been desirable to bring into prominence the agreement 
between the N. T. language and ordinary Greek usage, par- 
ticularly in those cases where such agreement appears rather 
as exceptional, and a departure from the usage of the N. T. 
elsewhere. Moreover, the usage of the classic authors them- 
selves varies so much, according to time, place, subject, etc., 
that it could not fail often to seem appropriate to indicate 
the coincidence between the N. T. usage and this or that de- 
partment of classic Greek. And finally, it has been necessary 
occasionally, where the more thorough treatment of the peculi- 
arities of a department relatively restricted required a more 
extended presentation of a topic, to give a more detailed 
delineation even of the ordinary usage than could be given in 
a general Greek Grammar for the use of schools. This has 
been particularly the case where the usage of later writers or 
of the Seventy, to whieh of course little or no regard is wont 
to be paid in school Grammars, has had unmistakable influence 
upon the language of the Ν, T. 


SUBSTANTIVES AND ADJECTIVES. 
THE SUBSTANTIVE. 
B. § 128. 

When a substantive, whether concrete or abstract, in any 
Case, refers to another substantive (subject) in the Plural 
in such a way that it pertains equally to every individual of 
the plurality, accurate usage requires that it also should 
stand in the Plural. 


The ancient languages, as is well known, are more consistent in this 
respect than, for instance, the German, which says unhesitatingly, © 
and perhaps more frequently than not, ste zogen sich das Kleid an, 
schlugen das Gesicht nieder, fielen auf das Knie, etc. etc. But 
irregularities occur also in ancient authors, even (though seldom) in 
good Greek prose ;* hence no special N. T. usage can be established 
on such passages as Acts xviii. 6 τὸ αἷμα ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν 
ὑμῶν, Luke xxiv. 4 ἐπέστησαν ἐν ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ, vs. 5 Lehm. 
(κλίνουσαι) τὸ πρόσωπον εἰς τὴν γῆν, 1 Thess. iii. 10 ὑμῶν τὸ πρόσωπον, 

1 The subject requires, according to Bhdy. Synt. p. 60 note 3, a more careful ex 
amination than has yet been given it. See the works there referred to. 


§ 123.] APPOSITION. 7 17 


1 Cor. vi. 19 τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν, Rev. vi. 11 ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς στολὴ λευκή, Xi. 
8, 9 τὸ πτῶμα αὐτῶν. On the other hand, the Plural occurs Acts i. 10 
(ἐν ἐσθήσεσι λευκαῖς), Rev. xi. 9 (τὰ πτώματα αὐτῶν) ; and in several 
of the above passages important authorities (followed sometimes by 
Tdf. [Treg.]) have the Plural. This fluctuation in the mss. proves 
the currency of both modes of expression; and again, the frequent 
correction of the Sing. into the Plur. shows that offence was taken at 
the Sing. as the inferior form. 

Respecting the Hebraistic circumlocutions διὰ χειρὸς, ἐκ χειρὸς, διὰ 
στόματος αὑτῶν, see § 133, 20 p. 182. 

Most of the passages adduced by Winer.175 (165) where, on the 
contrary, the Plural seems to stand instead of the Singular, rest 
npon no fixed usage, and accordingly the explanation of the Plural 
must be left to the interpretation of the individual passages; e.g, Matt. 
ii. 20 (οἱ ζητοῦντες), xxi. 7 (ἐπάνω αὐτῶν), xxvii. 44 (οἱ λῃσταί), 1 Cor. 
xvi. 8 (80 ἐπιστολῶν), Heb. ix. 23 (κρείττοσιν θυσίαις), etc. The same 
holds true of passages in which the interpreters recognize a Hebraistic 
pluralis excellentiae (John ix. 3 τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ, Heb. vii. 6 τὰς 
ἐπαγγελίας, etc.) ; in these the Plural, without any such assumption, 
has a natural foundation in the ordinary usage. On the other hand, 
the following belong to an idiomatic usage: 


1) Those substantives which are Plural only. These, so 
far as they are peculiar to the N. T., have already found their 
place above on p. 23 sq. 

2) The custom, belonging to ancient languages in general, 
of expressing abstract ideas by the Plural, inasmuch as 
in this way not the idea of the abstract, as such, is to be indi- 
cated, but rather its external manifestation, — its applicability 
to a certain plurality of persons or objects. Thus in the N. T. 
oceur frequently οἰκτιρμοί, προσωπολημψίαι, ὑποκρίσεις, ἐριθεῖαι, 
θυμοί, φθόνοι, μοιχεῖαι, κλοπαί, πλεονεξίαι, πονηρίαι, κατα- 
λαλιαί, πρωτοκλισίαι, etc. In enumerations, the Plural and 
the Singular are wont to be interchanged ; as, Mark vii. 22; 
Gal. v. 19 sq. 

APPOSITION. 
B. § 123, 2; H. § 500; ©. $898; D. § 407; J. 8 467. 

Appositive limitations which are separated from the sub- 
stantive to which they belong by a relative clause referring to 
the same substantive, may also take the Case of the Relative, 
being attracted by it as the nearer word. 


The clearest instance is Phil. iii. 18 πολλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν, ods πολλάκις 
ρ 


68 


3 


69 


18. APPOSITION. [g 128 


ἔλεγον ὑμῖν ......) τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Xp. 1 John ii. 25 ἡ 
ἐπαγγελία, ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν, τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, Philem. 10 
τοῦ τέκνου, ὃν ἐγέννησα ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς, ᾿νήσιμον, τόν ποτε etc. Cf. 
Rev. xvii. 8 (dv... βλεπόντων) ; and respecting 2 Cor. x. 18 (ob... 
pérpov) see § 143, 9 p. 286. 

The assertion that appositive limitations are also expressed by the 
Genitive, rests upon an erroneous conception of such combinations 
as πόλις τῆς Σαμαρείας Acts viii. 5, πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Toudppas 2 Pet. 
ii. 6 (Lat. urbs Rome, fluvius Euphratis), and it is only out of con- 
descension to modern usage that an appositive relation is here assumed. 
Just as erroneous is it to’ bring under apposition such phrases as τὸν 
ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος, τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος, σημεῖον περιτομῆς; 
etc., since such combinations are either to be taken literally, or at 
most as circumlocutions of simple abstract ideas. Such periphrases 
are quite current in the ancient languages generally, and in the N. T. 
preéminently with the apostle Paul. 


In certain portions of the N. T., however, a noticeable de- 
parture from the grammatical usage of other writers is per- 
ceptible. That is to say, appositives whether expressed by a 
substantive, an adjective, or a participle, since they may be 
regarded as an abbreviation of a relative clause (cf. § 125, 3 
p-92sq.),frequently appear, not in the oblique case demanded 
by the context, but in the Nominative, — still lingering, as 
it were, after the rejection of the relative construction, in the 
extraneous case, viz. the Nominative. 


The most conspicuous examples of this incorrect grammatical usage 
are found in the Apocalypse: i. 5 ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Xp. ὃ μάρτυς ὃ πιστός, vii. 4 
τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων, ἑκατὸν ... χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι, Xx. 2 
ἐκράτησεν τὸν δράκοντα, ὃ ὄφις 6 ἀρχαῖος ; particularly when the Partie. 
with the Art. is used: ii. 20 τὴν Ἰεζάβελ, ἣ λέγουσα ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν, 
iii. 12 τῆς καινῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ, 7 καταβαίνοισα, xiv. 12 τῶν ἁγίων, ot 
τηροῦντες, Vili. 9 τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων, τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχάς, ix. 14 τῷ 
ἕκτῳ ἀγγέλῳ, ὃ ἔχων τὴν σάλπιγγα ; and even many limiting participles 
without the article’ may be conveniently viewed as instances of 
this construction, as xiv. 14 (εἶδον) ὅμοιον υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου, ἔχων ete. 
whether we refer ἔχων to ὅμοιον (τινά) or to vid, cf. xix. 12; and with 
especial harshness in vii. 9 Lehm. εἶδον ὄχλον πολὺν (Tdf.[so Treg. ] καὶ 
ἰδοὺ ὄχλος πολύς) ... ἑστῶτες ... περιβεβλημένους. (See respecting 


1 That we are justified in assuming that the writer often, instead of the Participle, 
had in mind a relative clause in very form, may be seen from such passages as 


vi. 1 ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ... λέγοντος ὧς φωνὴ βροντῆς (Rec. by correction φωνῆς). Cf. 
on the other hand, Rom. i. 4 ete. 


§ 123.] APPOSITION. 79 


the very frequent loose annexation of participial clauses in the Nom. 
and their use instead of other cases § 129 a. 6 p. 141, § 144, 3-7 and 
especially 13 p. 298, and cf. the examples given in § 151, 12 p. 386 
of loose connection of clauses in other constructions also), In the 
other writers this use appears on the whole less frequently, although 
there is reason for supposing that the number of passages of the sort 
has been greatly diminished by later corrections (the Rec. in fact had 
displaced it almost everywhere). A plain instance occurs in Mark xii. 
39sq. The recent editors, indeed, [Lchm. Tdf. Treg.] place one of 
the larger punctuation marks before οἱ κατεσθίοντες [κατέσθοντες Treg. | 
and let the Partic. be resumed by the following οὗτοι, according to 
§ 144, 21 p. 306, so that vs. 40 forms an independent clause by itself. 
But the asyndeton before οἱ κατεσθίοντες is not satisfactory, and still 
less the assumption that the forcible close (οὗτοι λήμψονται etc.) is to 
be referred merely to vs. 40, and not at the same time to vss. 38, 39. 
On the contrary, by referring οἱ κατεσθίοντες immediately to τῶν ypap- 
ματέων not only does the passage gain in natural flow, but the con- 
struction assumed receives external confirmation also on comparing it 
with the parallel passage in Luke (xx. 47 Tdf. [ Treg. ] ot κατεσθίουσιν). 
An instance without the article is Mark vii. 19 (πᾶν) εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα 
ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα (Rec. καθαρίζον). Respecting 
Luke xxiv. 47 Tdf. [Treg.] (ἀρξάμενοι) see § 160, 7 p. 874. 

In’ Phil. iii. 19, therefore, it is not necessary to refer back the 
loosely appended clause ot τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες to the remote leading 
subject of the sentence, and in Luke xx. 27 (τινὲς τῶν Σαδδ., of ἀντιλέ- 
yovres) the description οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες applies not merely to the part 
(τινές), but to the whole. But Jas. iii. 8 (τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν ...+ ἀκατά- 
στατον κακόν, μεστὴ ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου), 2 Cor. xi. 28 (ἡ ἐπίστασίς μοι ἡ 
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν etc.) and similar passages are rather to be taken as in- 
dependent clauses left incomplete and approximating to exclamation. 


1 An extraordinary example of grammatical inaccuracy is given by the mss. 
[& also] in Acts vi. 5 Lcehm. ἐξελέξαντο Στέφανον, ἄνδρα πλήρης πίστεως. In 
such a writer as Luke (particularly in the Acts) such a combination may be held 
to be impossible (ἀνὴρ πλήρης might have been tolerated) ; hence, in spite of the 
emphatic testimony, Tdf. [so Treg.] has refused to accept the reading in this form. 
Another example is Acts x. 37 οἴδατε τὸ γενόμενον ῥῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας, 
ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα (by the by: read κήρυγμα accord- 
ing to cod. Vat., Roman ed. 1868), sustained almost unanimously by the entire 
collection of uncials (including Vat. and Sin.), and, what is strangest of all, not 
called in question even by the correctors of the mss., as may be gathered from the 
collation of a yet larger number of mss. The change into ἀρξάμενον is easily made, 
and forces itself upon every one. But since not even the ancient correctors ven- 
tured to make it, we are the less warranted in doing so, but must put up with the 
grammatical anomaly, and assume that the formula ἀρξάμενος ἀπό to the mind of 
the writer had become petrified almost into an indeclinable adverbial adjunct, 


80 CONSTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN. J§ 123 


Respecting the Accusative in appositional specifications see § 131, 
13 p. 153. 

Remark. The question whether adjuncts in the correct gram- 
matical case (as 1 Pet. iii. 21; Rom. viii. 23, etc.) are to be taken as 
appositive or not, pertains wholly to the exegesis of the several 
passages. 

AGREEMENT OF ADJECTIVAL ADJUNCTS WITH THEIR SUBSTANTIVE. 


CoNSTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN. 
B. § 123, 8and N. 8; H. ὃ 511, 28; C. 88. 492-98; D. p. 862; J. § 878. 


The offences against grammatical accuracy in respect to 
Gender and Number in which the language of the N. T. 
allows itself, are far less frequent than as respects Case, (see 
the preceding chapter). Most instances of the sort, also, may 
be comprised under the grammatical categories of Attraction 
and Constructio ad Synesin; and accordingly reference 
may be made to the sections relative to these topics: §§ 127, 7 
Ρ. 105, 129, 8 p. 129, and 143, 4 p. 281. Hence only those 
passages will be spoken of here in which similar irregularities 


occur with attributive (i.e. adjectival) adjuncts of the 


substantive. 


The strongest cases are furnished, again, by the Apocalypse. Yet 
they are hardly founded in the author’s ignorance of the laws of the 
language, as there is reason enough for supposing that such roughnesses 
of expression were positively designed by him; cf. deWette on Rey. 
i. 4; Winer 534 sq. (497 sq.) : for instance, xii. 5 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] 
ἔτεκεν υἱὸν ἄρσεν (Tdf. [ed. 2] ἄρρενα), ds μέλλει etc., since the idea of 
τέκνον (which word actually follows just afterwards) is suggested by 
the verb ἔτεκεν (Germ. sie gebar einen Sohn, ein Ménnliches, der etc.). 
On the altogether analogous combinations θηρίον ὃς, ὀνόματα ot, and the 
like, see § 143, 4 p. 282. Still more surprising is the reading of Lchm. 
in xvii. 8 καθημένην ἐπὶ θηρίον κόκκινον, γέμοντα ὀνόματα βλασφημίας 
ἔχον κεφαλὰς, --- a harshness which [Treg., not now Tdf.] avoids by 
separating the word into γέμον τὰς But harsh expressions of this sort 
are quite common in the Reyv., as witness immediately afterwards the 


Still more surprising, and grammatically viewed almost inexplicable, are two ex- 
amples from the Apocalypse, yet whose genuineness we are not warranted on this 
account in questioning: xix. 20 Lehm. ἐβλήθησαν εἰς thy λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς, τῆς 
καιομένη ev θείῳ (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] τὴν x.) and i. 15 Lehm. of πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι 
χαλκολιβάνῳ, ὧς ἐν καμίνῳ wemupwpuéyns (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] -νοι) . From the last 
passage it at least follows that the word is χαλκολίβανος, not -νον (it is wanting 
in the Sept.), and is of the Feminine gender, as the simple λίβανος is so often 
(Eurip. Nicand., see Steph. sub voce), and accordingly has pretty nearly the sense 
of brazen incense (amber ?), The gloss in Suidas under χαλοκλίβανον is not genuine; 
see Bernhardy in loc. [Ini. 15 Tdf. ed. 8 reads -νῳ. Treg. in both agrees with 
Lchm.] 


§123.] OMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE WITH ADJECTIVES. 81 


simultaneous dependence of the Acc. and the Gen. upon γέμον, see 
§ 132, 12 p. 164. The language in the following passages is in com- 
plete antagonism to a sense of grammatical propriety, but sustained 
by the mss. [Sin. also]: xi. 4 οὗτοί εἰσιν ... at δύο λυχνίαι ai ἐνώπιον 
κυρίου τῆς γῆς ἑστῶτες, where no author would have written any 
thing else than ἑστῶσαι (the correction of Rec.), and nevertheless 
ἑστῶτες must be referred to the οὗτοι at the beginning, xxi. 9 Lchm. 
εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἐχόντων τὰς ἑπτὰ φιάλας, TOV γεμόντων (Tdf. 
[eds. 2,7] γεμούσας) τῶν πληγῶν etc., where γεμόντων as respects sense 
can have reference only to φιάλας, and yet has been attracted by τῶν 
ἀγγέλων, so that the ἄγγελοι seem to be, as it were, identified with the 
φιάλαι, xiv. 19 εἰς τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μέγαν (Ree. [ cod. 
Sin. also] τὴν μεγάλην), which cannot be grammatically defended by 
the fact that Anvds has two genders ; see the lexicons, and cf. xiv. 20; 
Deut. xvi. 13; Gen. xxx. 38, 41, etc. To the examples already given 
may be added v. 12 Tdf. and xxi. 14 (Tdf. ['Treg. ; x* om., δὲ εχον. }). 

Tn the other writings of the N. T. such anomalies are seldom met 
with, even in the mss.; for such a combination as λιμὸν μέγαν ... ἥτις 
in Acts (xi. 28), the reading given by several Mss., is very improbable ; 
see above p.12. On the other hand, in Phil. ii. 1 εἴ τε ς σπλάγχνα καὶ 
οἰκτιρμοὶ Lchm. [Tdf. eds. 7,8, Treg.]isnot only the reading almost 
unanimously [ Sin. also] attested, but, however offensive the combina- 
tion may sound even to our ears, is to be preferred with Grsb. Lchm. 
[Ταῖΐ 7, 8, Treg. ] to the manifest corrections twa or 71, which also are 
by no means satisfactory. We have nothing left us here except to con- 
nect tis, by virtue of the constr. ad syn. and in view of what precedes, 
immediately with the abstract idea (compassion) which follows, although 
such a connection is to be justified only by the license of epistolary 
style. In Mark xiii. 14 Tdf. (even before the discovery of Sin.) had 
adopted the reading ὅταν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστηκότα [80 
Treg. |, the writer having had in mind a dimly conceived Mase. subst., 
either a heathen statue or a Roman army or something else of the 
sort; cf. Fritzsche on Matt. xxiv. 15. 

Acts iii. 11 πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ... ἔκθαμβοι is quite according to usage; the 
passage falls under the head of Participles constructed ad synesin, 
respecting which see especially ὃ 129, 8 p. 129 sq. 


OMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE WITH ADJECTIVES. 
B. $123, 5 and N. 5; H. § 509; C. $506; D. $399; J. § 486. 

Examples of the omission of easily supplied substantives 
with adjectives are not uncommon in the N. T. Thus by the 
omission of ἡμέρα we have τῇ ἐχομένῃ, ἐπιούσῃ, τρίτῃ, ἡ 
ἑβδόμη (Heb. iv. 4), cf. the similar instances § 125,10 p. 95; 

11 


Ἂ 


71 


12 


89 ADJECTIVES USED INSTEAD OF ADVERBS. [$123 


of ὁδός Luke xix. 4 ἐκείνης ἤμελλεν διέρχεσθαι, v. 19 ποίας 
εἰςξενέγκωσιν αὐτόν ; of yelp: ἡ ἀριστερά, ἡ δεξιά, δεξιὰς διδόναι 
etc.; of γῆ: ἡ ξηρά, ἡ περίχωρος, etc.; of πύλη John vy. 2 
ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ; of ἄνδρες (more specifically διάκονοι 
Acts xxi. 8 ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά (οἷ, vi. 5); of ἄγαλμα Acts xix. 35 
τὸ διοπετές (cf. Eurip. I. T. 950; Herodian 1. 11). 


What omitted word is to be supplied is not always so evident as in 
the above examples, and accordingly it has been proposed to regard 
the force of the subst. as inhering in the adjective, and (as in § 128, 
1 p. 122) not to supply any definite word. With Masculines and 
Feminines, however, this will hardly do, and accordingly we must, 
as in all languages, supply a more or less definite idea, although it 
may be but dimly conceived. Thus the idea of Zime, conformably to 
ὁ χρόνος Or 7 wpa, ἡμέρα; hence both ἀφ᾽ ἧς 2 Pet. iii. 4; Luke vii. 
45 etc. (cf. Col. i. 6,9), and ἀφ᾽ οὗ, ἐξ οὗ, ἄχρις οὗ, etc., further ἐξ αὐτῆς 
or ἐξαυτῆς Acts x. 33; xi. 11 etc., ἔτι τετράμηνός ἐστιν John iy. 35; 
Space, Locality, as it were after ἡ χώρα, as ἐξ ἐναντίας Mark xy. 39, 
ἐκ τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰς τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν λάμπει Luke xvii. 24, further 
ἐν δεξιᾷ, plur. ἐκ δεξιῶν, ἐξ εὐωνύμων, and the like ; Breeze, after ἡ αὔρα: 
Acts xxvii. 40 τῇ πνεούσῃ; Water, agreeably to τὸ ὕδωρ: Matt. x. 42 
ποτήριον ψυχροῦ, Jas. iii. 11 ἡ πηγή ... βρύει τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ πικρόν ; 
more specifically Kain: Jas. v. 7 (γεωργὸς μακροθυμῶν) ἕως λάβῃ 
πρώϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον ; Raiment: John xx. 12 δύο ἀγγέλους ἐν λευκοῖς 86. 
ἱματίοις (a word which by subsequent correction was added Matt. xi. 
8 Rec.), Rev. xviii. 12,16 περιβεβλημένη βύσσινον, πορφυροῦν, ete.; 
Opinion, in accordance with ἡ γνώμη, in the phrase ἀπὸ μιᾶς Luke 
xiv. 18. 

An example also of the omission of a substantive implied in the 
idea of the verb (τοῦτον ὀλίγας ἔπαισε se. πληγάς B. § 123, N. δ) 
occurs in Luke xii. 47 δαρήσεται πολλάς... ὀλίγας (with the Passive 
according to the usage treated of in § 184, 6 p. 189); and similarly 
2 Cor. xi. 24 τεσσεράκοντα παρὰ μίαν ἔλαβον. 

Respecting adverbial expressions, like κατ᾽ ἰδίαν, δημοσίᾳ, etc., see 
B. § 115, 4 p. 266. 

Remark. The opposite case (B. ὃ 123, N. 6), viz. the addition 
of ἀνήρ to substantives, as though it were an adjective, occurs only 
with Luke (xxiv. 19 ἀνὴρ προφήτης, Acts iii. 14 ἄνδρα φονέα, etc.) ; 
in respectful addresses (ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ, Γαλιλαῖοι, etc.) only in the Acts. 


ADJECTIVES USED INSTEAD OF (ENGLISH) ADVERBS. 
B. § 128, 6; Η. ὃ 488; C. § 509; D. p. 458 sq.; J. ὃ 714. : 
This use is quite current with the N. T. writers, so that it 
is not worth while to.give the separate instances, since they 


§ 123.] COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE. 83 


agree in the main with the specifications given in the Grammars; 
as, ἑκὼν πράσσω, δευτεραῖοι ἤλθομεν, πύλη αὐτομάτη ἠνοίχθη, 
ἑστῶτας ἀργούς (Matt. xx. 3), etc. In like manner these 
authors discriminate accurately between πρῶτος and πρῶτον, 
e.g. John xx. 4; i. 42 Tdf.; xviii. 13, etc.; μόνος and μόνον, 
e.g. Rom. xvi. 4; Matt. v. 47, ete. 


CoMPARATIVE AND, SUPERLATIVE. 
B. § 128,7; H. § 662; C. $514; Ὁ. $415; J. § 784. 

When the idea or the object with which the comparison is 
made is apparent at once from the connection, the Comparative 
not infrequently stands alone, and so gets the look of a Positive, 
as Acts xvii. 21 τὶ καινότερον. Especially is this the case with 
the Comparative of adverbs, as τάχιον, κάλλιον, μᾶλλον, ἄσσον, 
περισσοτέρως, etc. ; cf. p.69sq. Moreover, this usage is by no 
means peculiar to the N. T.; see the literature in Winer 242 sq. 
(227 sq.). 

B. § 123, N. 8; H. § 665; C. §510; D. p. 892; J. § 784, 2. 

Examples of the (pleonastic) strengthening of the Comparative by 
μᾶλλον are Mark vii. 36 μᾶλλον περισσότερον ἐκήρυσσον ; still 
stronger Phil. i. 23 πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον. The strengthening by 
means of πολύ, ἔτι, etc. needs no explanation. 


Respecting the Comparative force of the Positive see § 149 under 
n Ρ. 360. 


B. § 128, N. 9; H. ὃ 6648q.; C. § 5538; D. p. 896; J. ὃ 870, Obs. 4. 

The intensifications of the Superlative (by πολύ, μάλιστα, ete., the 
particles ds, ἡ, etc., the pron. οἷος, etc.) usual in Greek authors do not 
occur in the N. T. On the other hand, certain constructions are 
brought forward by the interpreters as (in part intensive) circum- 
locutions for the Superlative. That sometimes the Positive may 
in a sense take the place of a Superlative is apparent in Matt. xxii. 36 
ποία ἐντολὴ μεγάλη ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ; cf. vs. 38. To this may be added Matt. 
v. 19 (μέγας κληθήσεται), Luke x. 42 (τὴν ἀγαθὴν μερίδα ἐξελέξατο) 
and the Hebraistic (Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 692 [Gr. § 117]) phrase, Luke 
i. (28) 42 εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν. But in all these passages our 
Positive is fully adequate as a translation (and has been used for the 
most part), so that a peculiar (Hebraistic) usus loguendi cannot be 
founded upon them. Such a peculiarity might sooner be found in the 
circumlocution for the Superlative formed according to Hebrew pre- 
cedent (n"wIpN wp, see Gesen. as above), if it had been perpetuated 


in any other expression than τὰ ἅγια ἁγίων, already touched upon 


1 


19 


12 


13 


14 


74 


84 COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE. [§ 123 


Ρ. 24; for, substantive phrases, such as Bao λεὺς βασιλέων, κύριος κυρίων, 
can hardly be included under this head, as Winer 246 (231) correctly 
remarks. 

Concerning μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον see ὃ 150 fp. 373. 


INTERCHANGE OF COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE. 


Luther in his translation of the Bible [so A. V.] has availed 
himself, in a number of passages, of the (German) Superlative 
instead of the Greek Comparative, (an example, however, 
which de Wette has not followed); and consequently the 
opinion has been pretty general, that such an interchange of 
the degrees of comparison is a characteristic of the N. T. 
language. That this is not the case modern commentators 
have shown abundantly, and careful consideration of the sense 
will teach every attentive reader for himself. 


Since, however, it is not to be denied that the modern languages in 
the majority of these cases would have employed the Superlative or 
other modes of expression, we will here designate the passages in 
question ; but for the extended exposition of them, in particular of 
1 Cor, xiii. 13, reference must be made to the commentaries. Besides 
this instance, we have Matt. xviii. 1 and the parallel passages (Mark 
ix. 84; Luke ix. 46), Matt. xi. 11; Luke vii. 28; xxii.24. We must 
not number among them the passages in which the nature of the Com- 
parative is preserved by the addition πάντων, and at the most we are to 
assume a very common circumlocution for the Superlative; hence 
Luther [so A. V. generally] translates such passages also (but with 
greater reason) by the Superlative: Matt. xiii. 32; Mark iv. 32; 
1 Cor. xv. 19. Similar is John x. 29. 

Lastly, it is said that on the other hand the Superlative can stand 
for the Comparative. This opinion rests upon the connection — 
occurring here and there in native Greek writers — of the Superlative 
with the Genitive (e.g. Hom. Od. A, 482) or with 4; respecting which 
see Herm. ad Vig. p. 718 and ad Eur. Med. p. 343 (V. 67). In the 
N. T. only John’s connection of πρῶτος with the Genitive cam here 
come into account; this, however, receives its natural explanation by 
the (later) usage spoken of p. 32, according to which πρῶτος often 
stands for πρότερος (e.g. Matt. xxi. 28, 36, etc.). The passages are 
John i. 15, 80; i. 42 Tdf.; xv. 18 (Vulg. prior). 

That the wish of certain interpreters to refer Luke ii. 2 also to this 
head is thoroughly contrary to philology, has of late been sufficiently 
demonstrated ; see the commentaries of deWeite, Meyer, and especially 


. Winer, R.W.B. under Quirinius, and Gram. 244 sq. (229). 


§ 124] THE ARTICLE. 85 


Tue ARTICLE. 
B. § 124, 2; ©. 8 δ48 ἃ.; D. p.348; J. 8 669; W. 8 117 (111). 

Instead of the indefinite article, εἷς without a partitive 
Gen. following is not infrequently used, as elsewhere also in 
later writers (Achil. Tat. 4, 22),— accordingly for ris. Thus, 
for instance, but in connection with a participle, Matt. xix. 16 
and the parallel passage εἷς προςελθὼν εἶπεν (cf. Mark xv. 36) ; 
with a substantive, Matt. xxvi. 69 μέα παιδίσκη, xxi. 19 συκῆν 
μίαν, Mark xii. 42 μία χήρα, etc. Among the variants we 
often find for εἷς the reading tis, and in the versions wnus and 
quidam. 

With this may be compared the Hebrew use of mx (Sept. εἷς) in 
isolated passages, as 1 Kings xx. (xxi.) 13; Dan. viii. 3, etc., but it is 
unnecessary to assume that it served as the precedent for the N. T. 
usage. It is incorrect to refer to this head those passages in which 
the idea of unity, in contrast with a (mentioned or unmentioned) 
plurality, must have distinctly hovered before the mind of the writer, 
as in the Rev. εἷς ἄγγελος xviii. 21; xix 17, ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ viii. 13, etc. 

The pleonastic combination εἷς τις (bit always with a partitive Gen. 
following) is found in Luke xxii. 50; John xi. 49 (Vulg. wnus), Mark 
xiv. 47 Tdf., without a Gen. following Mark xiv. 51 Tdf. but with 
important variants.’ 


THe DEFINITE ARTICLE. 
B. $124, 1. 85α.; H. $526 sqq.; C. §520sqq.; Ὁ. § 394; J. § 446. 

In reference to the definite article the rules and regulations 
given in the grammars hold good,—so far as in a subject so 
delicate as this we can talk of rules. For in the endeavor to 
lay down fixed laws respecting the use of the article, many 
a learned and laborious inquiry has already come to naught; 
and the intention ought at length to be abandoned of forcing 
the use or the omission of the article under precise regulations, 
which find the proof of their nullity and uselessness in the 
throng of exceptions which it is necessary to subjoin straight- 
way to almost every rule laid down. For, a writer’s sovereign 
pleasure does not allow itself to be curtailed, whenever it 
seems good to him (or perspicuity, that supreme law of every 

1 It is not allowable to compare with this the classic use of εἷς tis, since in the 


earlicr writers this combination is never used except where it was necessary to 
express at the same time unity and indefiniteness united, as is evident 


from Soph. Oed. Tyr. .8; Antig. 262, and the other passages, (see Steph. under εἷς 


p 289). 


Τὸ 


76 


86 THE DEFINITE ARTICLE. [8 124. 


intelligent writer or speaker, requires him) to depart even 
from a well-founded grammatical law. Nevertheless, it is the 
grammarian’s task to settle the nature of the article in 
its main features, and to elucidate the same by a number of 
examples, and then to trace back the exceptional uses to their 
respective principles. It is that of the exegete, to show in 
every particular passage by what thought the writer was led in 
one case to use the article, in another and perhaps precisely 
identical case, to omit it. Accordingly, we shall content our- 
selves here with selecting from the mass of pertinent material 
such special cases only as at least approximate to a general 
use, or rest upon a grammatical basis clearly recognizable. 

Since the use of the article with Names of Persons is 
wholly variable in the N. T. also (let the use of the names 
Jesus, Peter, Pilate, in this respect be traced in the Gospels, 
and that of Paul in the Acts), the matter must be left where 
the general Grammar places it: viz. by using the article the 
writer means to designate the person as one known or already 
mentioned; without the article he wishes simply to give his 
name. Accordingly, when. rather unimportant persons are 
mentioned for the first time, the article is everywhere omitted 
unless other reasons render its addition desirable. 

Such a reason is the desire to be perspicuous. It will be found, 
for instance, that indeclinable names often have the article, 
manifestly only to make the case apparent, especially when the name 
stands in an oblique case; as, Mark xv. 45 ἐδωρήσατο τὸ πτῶμα τῷ 
Ἰωσήφ, Rom. xi. 25 πώρωσις. ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν. When the 
case is plain from the connection, the art. is commonly wanting; as 
after a Prep., e.g. ἐκ Σιὼν, ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ; with a Gen. after a subst., as 
Acts xiii. 21 ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Σαοὺλ, υἱὸν Κ εὶς, ἄνδρα ἐκ φυλῆς Βενιαμείν 
etc. ‘That all such rules, however, are only approximately correct, 
attentive reading will soon teach. 

It has further been observed, that names of countries 
have the art. far more frequently than names of cities. This 
observation is philologically well founded. For the great 
majority of names of countries are originally adjectives, as 7 
Ayaia, ἡ Γαλατία, which consequently must be first rendered 
substantives by the addition of the article; with names of 
cities, this as a rule is not the case. Again, however, ex- 
amples of the opposite occur in both cases; and accordingly 
here, too, the general remarks made in 2 above apply. 


§ 124.] THE DEFINITE ARTICLE. 87 


On the other hand, it is to be noticed as a constant exception to the 
above rule, that the common word Αἴγυπτος never has the art. (for in 
Acts vii. 11 Lchm. [Τὰ Treg.] the art. has another cause); yet 
probably for no other reason than because the word originally is not 
an adjective like the rest. And with what has been already said in 
3 above, agrees perfectly the fact that names of cities after a prep. (ἐν, 
eis, €k) are connected with the art. very much less frequently than 
where they stand without a prep., especially in the Nominative. 

The names of rivers approximate so much to the nature 
of appellatives that the addition of the article seems to ke 
almost necessary. In the N. T. the art. is never wanting ; 
see the names "Jopddavns, Εὐφράτης, SiAwdp in the lexicons. 


B. § 124, N. 2; C. § 581; J. § 4538. 

Examples of the use and the omission of the art. with τοιοῦτος 
and τοσοῦτος are found in the N. T. in sufficient number (cf. e.g. 
Rom. i. 32; Mark ix. 87; Rev. xviii. 16 with 1 Cor. xi. 16; 2 Cor. 
ili. 12, etc.) to show that the distinction given in B. l.c. is perfectly 
observed,(i.e. the prons. are used with and without the art. according 
as it is either the object so qualified, or the quality as such, that is 
to be made prominent; and according as reference is made to a de- 
scription already given, or to one still to be given). 


B. 8. 124, N. 4; Η. §588¢.; C. ὃ 524; Ὁ. p. 852; J. § 452. 

The use of the art. with possessive prons. is observed by the 
language of the N.T.so strictly, that no single instance can be adduced 
of its omission where according to the rule it ought to stand. In the 
Sept. it is wanting more frequently, but only in certain portions often 
(e.g. in Prov. σὴν χεῖρα, σὸν οὖς, ἐμῇ σοφίᾳ, etc.), in others never. 
Where it is wanting in the N. T. the expression is predicative, as 
then (cf. ὃ 129, 1) the art. must be omitted (e.g. John iv. 34; xiii. 
35; xvii. 9; xv. 8, etc.; cf. Luke x. 29, 86; 2 Cor. viii. 23, where, 
however, the omission of the art. with the following ἀδελφοὶ jy av 
is erroneous, see ὃ 127, 27 p. 119), or the art. is brought in after- 
w ards in an attributive limitation that follows; as, Phil. iii. 9 μὴ ἔχων 
ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου. Sze below § 125, 3 p. 92 sq. 


B. § 124, N. 6; D. § 896; J. $446; W. p. 115 (109). 

The definite art. cannot stand for the indefinite — neither 
in the N.T. nor in any writer who thinks and writes in Greek ; 
although there are passages enough where we, certainly, em- 
ploy the indefinite art. rather than the definite, or at least might 
do so. On the contrary, the use of the article has everywnere 


TT 


38 OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE WITH APPELLATIVES. [§124. 


its positive reason, inasmuch as the writer conceives the object 
thus designated, as one sufficiently limited, either from its 
nature, or by the immediate context. In all cases where the 
definite article appears to stand for the indefinite, the writer 
has in mind a more closely defining participle or a relative 
clause, which if added would have been heavy or superfluous. 
Often by this addition of the article a certain rhetorical 
emphasis is laid upon the word (cf. § 129, 1, Remark p. 
124). In the translation of all such passages we shall do well 
if, in order to reproduce the intention of the writer, we avail 
ourselves likewise as far as possible of the definite article, even 
against our sense of propriety. 

Compare in particular with this section the detailed exposition given 
§ 129, 1 p. 128. To elucidate what has here been said, we will select 
but a few examples: Matt. xiii. 2 Tdf. [ed. 7] ὥστε eis τὸ πλοῖον ἐμβάντα 
καθῆσθαι he went into the ship (which was there, stood ready, etc.), on 
the other hand, Lchm. ['Treg. Tdf.], with equal grammatical accuracy, 
eis πλοῖον into a ship, John vi. 3 ἀνῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ὄρος (Luther [so A. V.] 
inaccurately a mountain), 1 Cor. iv. 5 ὁ ἔπαινος γενήσεται ἑκάστῳ ἀπὸ 
τοῦ θεοῦ, de Wette the praise (deserved) ; cf. Rom. iv. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 18; 
2 Cor. i. 17 μήτι dpa τῇ ἐλαφρίᾳ ἐχρησάμην; (where the art. is hard 
to reproduce in the translation) ; further, in the standing phrase Matt. 
Vili. 12, etc., ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων, emphatic ° 
the well-known, the terrible, pains of hell; so, too, always in the 
Doxologies eg. 1 Pet. iv. 11 ᾧ ἔστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος ete., Rev. 
v. 18, etc., see ὃ 129, 22 p. 137. Respecting 2 Thess. iii. 14 see 
§ 125, 2 p. 92. 


OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE WITH APPELLATIVES. 
B. § 124, N. 7; H. §580; C. § 583; D. p. 847; J. ὃ 447, 2. 

Since in the N. T. the omission of the article is very 
common in cases where we employ it, and where in strictness 
it ought to stand in Greek also, Winer gives to this subject in 
§ 19 a thorough examination, distinguished for the clearness 
and accuracy of its statements. The result he reaches is this: 
That the usage of the N. T. in this respect follows closely the 
four points specified in B. under this head [viz. -hat the 
Art. is omitted, 1) with general (especially) abstract terms 
in apothegmatic sentences, 2) in general adverbial ad- 
juncts, 8) with words individualized by the context, 4) with 
quasi-proper names]; and that likewise the remark there sub- 


8.124] OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE WITH APPELLATIVES. xy 


joined, viz. ** that none of these precepts are settled, and con- 
sequently in most cases the art. may still be employed,” 
is completely applicable to the N. T. We will therefore con- 
tent ourselves here, with confirming somewhat more in detail, 
and completing, the substance of those four rules, by means of 
a few examples from the N. T. The article is often wanting, 
accordingly, 

a) With abstract terms, as δικαιοσύνη, ἀγάπη, πίστις, κακία, πλε- 
ονεξία, ἁμαρτία, σωτηρία, also when compound: ζωὴ αἰώνιος, δόξα θεοῦ, 
λόγος ζωῆς, etc.; as, 1 Thess. v. 8 νήφωμεν ἐνδυσάμενοι θώρακα πίστεως 
καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ περικεφαλαίαν ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας, Gal. v. 5 ἡμεῖς πνεύματι 
ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. 

b) With such appellatives as approximate to proper names. Thus 
with θεός, κύριος, χριστός, πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἥλιος, γῆ (but not χώρα), 
θάλασσα, κόσμος (so e.g. always in the phrase ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, 
hence also in the synonymous ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως), further διάβολος and 
σατανᾶς, the last, however, but extremely seldom, and strictly speaking 
only in Luke xxii. 3; Acts xiii. 10; for in 1 Pet. νυ. 8; Rev. xx. 2, 
etc., the omission is regular. Lastly, ἀντίχριστος in 1 John ii. 18 with 
Lehm. Tdf. ['Treg.] according to the oldest mss. [ξ΄ also]. 

9) With such words as commonly seem to be individualized suf- 
ficiently by the connection, as πατήρ, μήτηρ (Matt. x. 37; Luke i. 15, 
etc.), γονεῖς (Rom. i. 80, etc.), vids, ἀνήρ and γυνή in the sense of 
husband and wife (Acts xviii. 2 etc.), πόλις, etc. Here belongs also 
νόμος to denote the Mosaic law, especially in the Pauline Epp., but 
not in the Gospels (cf. ἃ), and θάνατος, e.g. ἄξιος θανάτου, μὴ ἰδεῖν 
θάνατον, etc. The combination παῖδες καὶ γυναῖκες also, so common in 
the classics, occurs Acts xxi. 5 [σὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ τέκνοις]. 

d) In general adverbial phrases and standing formulas, especially 
when dependent upon prepositions, as κατὰ μεσημβρίαν, ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῆς, 
ἀπ᾽ ἀγορᾶς, ax ἀγροῦ, ἐν ἀγρῷ, ἐν ὑψίστοις (although an adj., cf. the 
note below), πίπτειν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον, κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμούς, ἕως and μέχρι θανάτου, 
ἐπὶ θύραις, ἐν μέσῳ, ἀπὸ τρίτης ὥρας, δείπνου γενομένου, ὀψὲ σαββάτων, 
πρὸ καιροῦ, dx ἀρχῆς, ἐγείρειν and ἀναστῆναι ἐκ vexpav,? and many 
similar “expressions. But in one respect the N. T. usage departs 


1 Even ὕψιστος, which when it stands for God, though as an adj. it ought to have 
the art., is yet used without it in Luke i. 32, 85, 76; vi. 35. Still more extraor- 
dinary is Rey. xi. 16 Lehm. εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι for οἱ mp. (Rec. [T. 1.1). 

2 Often also ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν, but also on the other hand ἐκ, ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν. 
The remark of Winer 123 (117) that the Greeks regularly omit the art. before 
νεκροί needs considerable limitation. For example, in Thucyd. the use of the art 
is far more frequent than its omission; and the latter, moreover, occurs for the 
most part only in connection with τὰ ναυάγια: 1. 54; 8. 106; 4. 14. 

12 


78 





79 


90 ART. WITH MORE CLOSELY DEFINED SUBSTANTIVES. [§ 125. 


manifestly from the classic, viz. eve:. when such adverbial phrases are 
restricted by a following Genitive te particular cases, and so lose their 
general character, the art. is frequently wanting; so especially in the 
Sept. This omission takes place regularly in the Hebraistic circum- 
locutions for simple prepositions by means of the terms πρόσωπον, 
χείρ, στόμα, as πρὸ or ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου, διὰ χειρὸς ἀνόμων, ete. 
(see § 188, 20 p. 182; § 146, 1 p. 819) ; further ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου, 
ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν (Matt. xxi. 42 quotn.), ἔπεσον ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτῶν, ἐξ 
ἐφημερίας ᾿Αβιά, ἐν ἡμέραις “Hpddov, Nae, εἰς ἡμέραν ἀπολυτρώσεως, ἐν 
ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς, εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ, ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ or τοῦ θρόνου, ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου γῆς 
ἕως ἄκρου οὐρανοῦ, ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς, and many others. Such omissions as 
belong at the same time to one of the preceding classes (a. b. c.), like 
the already mentioned πρὸ καταβολῆς or ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου, the 
Pauline phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, ἐπὶ παροργισμῷ 
ὑμῶν, κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν, εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης αὐτοῦ, ἐν νόμῳ 
κυρίου (Luke ii. 23, 24), further ἐν γῇ Μαδιάμ, Χαναάν, εἰς πόλιν Δαυείδ, 
ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, ete., may be justified well enough by .the ordinary 
usage. Cf. on this section § 127, 27, 1) p. 119 


Use oF THE ARTICLE WITH MORE CLOSELY DEFINED SUBSTANTIVES. 
B. $125, 1 to N.5; H. §58lsqq.; ©. $523; D. $$ 400. 407; J. § 4684. 

As has been already remarked in speaking of the Possess. 
Prons. ὃ 124, 6 p. 87, the language of the N. T. remained faith- 
ful throughout to the general rules of grammar in reference 
to the position of the article with a substantive having an 
attributive adjective: That is to say, it either places 
the adj. between the subst. and art. (τὸ ἅγιον mvedpa); or 
after the subst., repeating the art. (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) ; even 
repeating it twice, as Matt. xxv. 41 τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον τὸ ἧ- 
τοιμασμένον, Rev. viii. 8; ix. 18; xvii. 1, Hence in John, 
notwithstanding the frequency with which the phrase ζωὴ 
αἰώνιος occurs without the art. (agreeably to ὃ 124, 8 a) p. 89), 
as soon as the art. precedes it the expression is reversed: 7 
αἰώνιος ζωή (xvii. 3), or if the order is retained the art. is 
doubled (1 John i. 2; ii. 25). 


It would hardly be possible to adduce examples on the other side, 
inasmuch as all the instances in which the adj. stands without the 
art. after a subst. with the art. are either not genuine or find their 
grammatical explanation in other ways. Since Winer 133 (126) 
appears to acknowledge the existence of such exceptional cases, we 
will mention them here. In 1 John v. 20 the reading of the Ree. ἡ 
ζωὴ αἰώνιος is now set aside on Ms. authority and likewise in Luke x:.. 


§125.] ART. WITH MORE CLOSELY DEFINED SUBSTANTIVES. 91 


12 τὸ yap πνεῦμα ἅγιον. On Mark v. 36 (τὸν λόγον λαλούμενον) see 
§ 144,16 p. 302. In John v. 36 Tdf. (ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ 
Ἰωάννου) the word μείζω is predicative, and consequently the example 
belongs to those given below (5 p. 94). 1 Pet. i. 18 ἐκ τῆς ματαίας 
ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου is quite regular, since the classic 
Greek authors also are accustomed, after a subst. which already has one 
attributive, to put a second without the art., as Xen. Ages. 1, 10; Thue. 
6, 31,5; see other examples of the sort in Bhdy. Syntax p. 323. 
Accordingly, the common reading also in 1 Cor. x. 3 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] 
τὸ αὐτὸ βρῶμα πνευματικὸν ἔφαγον may be defended; but the oldest 
Mss. give [ἐξ simply πνευμ. Bpdp.] τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν βρῶμα ἔφαγον 
[ Treg. Tdf.] or ἔφαγον βρῶμα (Lchm.); likewise Gal. i. 4 Τα [668.2,1] 
ἐκ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ, where these mss. [so N*] read ἐκ τοῦ 
αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.]). Matt. xxiv. 45 τίς 
ἄρα ἐστὶν ὃ πιστὸς δοῦλος καὶ φρόνιμος a native Greek, to be sure, would 
perhaps not have written; but it finds its apology in the predicative 
position of the whole expression. In John xii. 9,12 the reading 6 
ὄχλος πολύς (B C L [so Tdf. & vs. 9, but in vs 12 he omits the art. 
with &]) is the only correct one, since ὄχλος πολύς was regarded as 
but asingle word (vulgus, the great mass), and ὃ πολὺς ὄχλος would 
sound strange, and very likely give another meaning. 

The case is different with adverbial additions to a 
substantive with the article. According to rule, they also 
ought always to stand between the art. and the subst., or to 
be placed after with a repeated art. as is often the case in the 
N. T.: Rom. vii. 10 ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν, Acts xv. 23 τοῖς κατὰ 
ἦν ᾿Αντιόχειαν καὶ Συρίαν ἀδελφοῖς τοῖς ἐξ ἐθνῶν ; see a mul- 
titude of similar passages in Winer 133 (126). But the 
language of the N. T. has liberated itself somewhat from the 
traditionary usage (although the beginnings of such a change 
can be traced even in good classic authors), in that it also 
subjoins such adverbial adjuncts without the article. 

From the examples belonging under this head, however, we must 
first except (as analogous to some given in 1 above) all those cases in 
which the subst. is already furnished with a genitival, adjectival, or 
adverbial attributive (whether inserted or subjoined); as, Eph. i. 15 
τὴν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ, iii. 4 τὴν σύνεσίν pov ἐν τῷ μυστηρίῳ, 
ili. 13 ταῖς θλίψεσίν μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, vi. 21 ὃ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς καὶ πιστὸς 
διάκονος ἐν κυρίῳ, Phil. i. 26 τῆς ἐνῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, iii. 14 
τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, Gal. i. 18 τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν 
ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ, Rom. ix. 3 τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα, 1 and 2 
Thess. i. 1 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων ἐν Θεῷ, 2 Cor. vii. 7; Col. i. 4, 8, 


80 


81 


92 ART. WITH MORE CLOSELY DEFINED SUBSTANTIVES. [§ 125. 


ete. Accordingly, in 2 Thess. iii. 14 the phrase διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς belongs 
to the preceding τῷ λόγῳ ὑμῶν, and cannot —as the position and the 
article indicate plainly enough — be referred to σημειοῦσθε following, 
for thus it would receive an inappropriate emphasis. More surprising, 
yet absolutely required by the sense (see the recent commentaries and 
Winer 220 (206)), is the construction of the phrase ἐν δόγμασιν in 
Eph. ii. 15 with the preceding τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολών ; and still more 
harsh is the Dative rots δόγμασιν, which belongs to τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν 
χειρόγραφον, in the parallel passage Col. ii. 14. 

But, setting these aside, cases enough are left in which the adverbial 
adjunct is placed after a subst. limited only by the art., cases in 
which exegesis, to be sure, has made manifold attempts to draw the 
adverbial phrase away from the subst. to other parts of the clause, 
but in which both position and sense require it to be connected with 
the subst. Least of all are we compelled to resort to such an apparent 
grammatical make-shift in cases where the governing subst. is an 
abstract term whose radical verb is capable of the 
same adverbial connection; for parallel instances are found 
even in the earlier prose writers from Herod. and Thucyd. down (see, 
among others, Poppo on Thucyd. 2, 52; Kriiger on Dionys. Historiogr. 
p- 153), and still more frequently in later authors. From the N. T. 
e.g. Rom. vi. 4 τὸ βάπτισμα εἰς τὸν θάνατον (cf. vs. 3 εἰς τὸν θάνατον 
αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν), 2 Cor. ix. 18 ἡ κοινωνία εἰς αὐτούς (agreeably to 
κοινωνεῖν εἰς in ὃ 192, 8 p. 160 ; and cf. the examples below, 11 p.95sq.). 
But such adjuncts also occur in the N. Τ᾿, often enough where at least 
the more accurate style requires the repetition of the art.; as, 1 Thess. 
iv. 16 of νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ, 1 Cor. x. 18 βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα, 
Eph. vi. 5 Tdf. [eds. 2,7; ed. 8, Treg. cod. Sin. τοῖς x. σ. κυρίοις] τοῖς 
κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα (cf. the parallel passage Col. iii. 22), Eph. iv. 1 ἐγὼ 
ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ, ii. 11 τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί. But to give a complete list 
of all such passages, and in particular to determine when such adver- 
bial adjuncts belong not to the subst. but to the verb or some other 
part of the proposition, lies quite beyond the limits of grammar, and 
must be left to the exegesis of the individual passages, since everywhere 
the context alone can decide. A portion of these doubtful passages 
are treated by Winer 137 (130). Cf. 11 p.95. 


The usage (cf. B. 8 125, 3 sub fin.) that, 1) when attributives 
are placed after with the art., the art. before the subst. is 
dropped; or, 2) to substantives which (according to § 124, 8 
p. 88 sq.) commonly stand without the art., the adjunct, when 
subjoined, is given with the art.,— jis quite current in the 
language of the N, T. 


§125.] ART. WITH MORE CLOSELY DEFINED SUBSTANTIVES. 93 


Examples of 1) are Luke xxiii. 49 γυναῖκες at συνακολουθοῦσαι, Acts 
i. 12 ἀπὸ ὄρους τοῦ κιλουμένου ἐλαιῶνος, Vii. 35 ἀγγέλου τοῦ ὀφθέντος 
(cf. vs. 30), 1 Pet. i. 7 χρυσίου τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου, Phil. iii. 9 ἐμὴν δικαι- 
οσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου (cf. vs. 6), i. 11 καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης τὸν διὰ “I. Xp. 
Rom. ix. 80 κατέλαβεν δικαιοσύνην; δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως, John 
xiv. 27 εἰρήνην ἀφίημι ὑμῖν, εἰρήνην τὴν ἐμὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν, Acts x. 1, 41; 
xxv. 23; Heb. ix. 2, 3, ete. Examples of 2) are very numerous: 
Rom. viii. 88 θεὸς 6 δικαιῶν, Gal. i. 1 θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτόν, 
ii. ZO ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ, Luke v. 86 Lchm. ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ 
καινοῦ, Mark viii. 27 Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου; cf. Acts xxvi. 22; 
1 Lim. i. 4; iii, 13; iv. 8; 2 Tim, i. 13, 14; ii. 10, ete. ete. 

Remark. Winer’s observation 139 sq. (182, cf. ed. 5 p. 159) that 
in such cases the substantive is strictly speaking always conceived 
indefinitely, and that the limitation following is equal to an 
abbreviated relative clause, is at least not to be extended 
to the above passages; probably, however, there are passages to which 
it applies. That is to say, since (as we have already seen § 123, 5 
Ρ. 78, and as will be shown at length ὃ 144, 9 p. 294) the par- 
tsciple with the art. often takes the place of a relative clause, 
such a participle may stand not only after indefinite pronominal ex- 
pressions, like tis, ἕτερος, ἄλλος, πολύς (ὃ 144, 9f) p. 295), but in general 
also after indefinite and consequently anarthrous substantives, as well 
as after such as are predicative and on this account (according to 
§ (29, 1 p. 123) also dispense with the article; e.g. Jude 4 zapes- 
ἐδυσάν tives ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρῖμα 
ἀι εβεῖς ; cf. Luke xviii. 9; Gal. i. 7; Col. ii. 8; Luke vii. 32 ὅμοιοι 
παιδίοις τοῖς ἐν ἀγορᾷ καθημένοις, John v. 2 [Lchm. Treg.] ἔστιν ἐν τοῖς 
Ἵεροσολ. κολυμβήθρα, 7 ἐπιλεγομένη Βηθεσδά, Acts xx. 19 μετὰ δακρύων 
καὶ πειρασμῶν τῶν συμβάντων μοι, Rom. ii. 14 ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα, 
ix. 50; Gal. ili. 21 εἰ ἐδόθη νόμος ὃ δυνάμενος ζωοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἂν ἦν 
ete Jas. iv. 14 ἀτμίς (pred.) ἐστε, ἡ πρὸς ὀλίγον φαινομένη, Acts xix. 11 
δυνάμεις τε οὐ τὰς τυχούσας ἐποίει οἷο. ; and with the omitted participle 
of εἶναι : Phil. ii. 9 ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα sc. ὄν. Cf. 


besides, the examples given in ὃ 144, 9f) p. 295. 


B. § 125, N. 2; H. §669d.; C. ὃ 628 ο.; S. p. xxxiii. sq. 


That the partitive genitive (which, however, frequently ap- 
pears in a resolved form, see § 182, 6 p. 158) is not inserted between 
the subst. and art. is plain from many examples, as τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν 
ἀζύμων, τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, ot πρῶτοι τοῦ λαοῦ, τὸ πλῆθος τῶν μαθητῶν, 
τῆς πόλεως, etc. Yet discrimination by means of position between the 
partitive and the ordinary Gen. is: almost wholly at an end in the 
N. 'T., since in the Gospels. and im the Rev. there hardly exists an 


94 ARTICLE IN LIEU OF A SUBSTANTIVE. [$128 


instance of insertion (of the ordinary Gen.), and in the Acts and the 
Epp. also the modern position grows more and more frequent, as ἡ 
ἐκπλήρωσις τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ ἁγνισμοῦ (Acts xxi. 26), 6 νόμος τοῦ πνεύ- 
ματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ (Rom. viii. 2), ete. 


Β. § 125, 8.4; Η. 8 ὅδδ; C. ὃ ὅ28 Ὁ.; D. p.860; J. § 468, Obs. 2. 

An adjective without the art., standing either befcre or 
after a substantive with the art., is predicative. 

Examples (besides John y. 36 adduced under 1 p. 91) are Mark 
viii. 17 πεπωρωμένην ἔχετε τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν, Heb. vii. 24 ἀπαράβατον 
ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην, 1 Pet. ii. 12 τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν ἔχοντες καλήν, iv. 
8; Heb. ν. 14; 1 Cor. xi. ὅ ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ, Acts xxvi. 24 
μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ φησίν, xiv. 10 Tdf. [eds. 2,7]; Eph. i. 18 πεφω- 
τισμένους τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, on which passage compare also ὃ 145, 6 
p: 317. 

B. § 125, N. 5; H. § 586sq.; C. § 623; Ὁ. § 444; J. § 459. 

Examples of the predicative position in the case of ὅλος are 
countless, see the lexicons ; but in the case of the other adjs. mentioned 
(ἄκρος, μέσος, ἔσχατος) none occur, because the later language is wont 
to employ them no longer as adjectives but as substantives, and hence 
to frame its expressions by means of the Neuter of the adj. with a 
Genitive following; as, τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ δακτύλον or τῆς ῥάβδου, ἐν μέσῳ 
τῆς αὐλῆς (not ἐν μέσῃ τῇ αὐλῇ) or αὐτῶν or τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἕως 
ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς, Heb. 1. 1 ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν (Ree. ἐσχάτων). On 
the other hand, with the last-mentioned word (ἡμέρα) the common 
adjectival position is often found, but in the other sense: ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ 
ἡμέρᾳ not at the end of the day, but on the last day; so τὸν ἔσχατον 
κοδράντην, ἣ ἐσχάτη πλάνη, etc. 


ARTICLE IN LIEU OF A SUBSTANTIVE, OR WITH A SUBSTANTIVE TO BE 
SUPPLIED. 


B. § 125, δ; H. § 568; C. § 527; D. p. 866; J. § 436. 

In the N.T., besides the common omission of son and 
daughter when the art. is followed by a Genitive (cf. § 123, 
8 p. 81sq.), that of μήτηρ is also to be noticed, Mark xvi. 1; 
Luke xxiv. 10 Μαρία ἡ τοῦ ᾿Ιακώβου, Mark xv. 47 Μαρία ἡ 
᾿Ιωσῆτος (complete in Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xy. 40); of 
γυνή, Matt. i. 6 ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου ; probably also of ἀδελφός, 
Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13 ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ιακώβου (cf. Jude 1; Winer, 
R.W.B. under Judas, I. p. 632; Credner, Hinl. p. 613; on the 
other hand, Meyer in 1]. cc.), and of πατήρ in the passage 
Acts vii. 16 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] (cf. Gen. xxxiii. 19; xxxiv. 6, etc.). 


§ 125.] ARTICLE IN LIEU 9F A SUBSTANTIVE. 95 


The designation, so frequent especially in the later profane literature, 83 
of a person in a broad sense by the phrase of περί τινα, strictly 8 
speaking does not occur in the N. T. For in Acts xiii. 13 οἱ περὲ 
Παῦλον plainly means, Paul and his companions (Vulg. Paulus et 
qui cum eo); in xxi. 8 the expression has been discarded; and John 
xi. 19 is doubtful: Tdf. πρὸς τὰς περὶ Μάρθαν καὶ Μαριάμ, (Lehm. [Treg., 
cod. Sin. ] πρὸς τὴν M. x. M.). In Mark iv. 10; Luke xxii. 49 of περὶ 
αὐτόν is to be understood quite literally, they that were about him. 

On the other hand, the art. of with a following Genitive 
is often found in the sense of ‘the people, adherents, etc., of a person,’ 
as Rom. xvi.10, 11 οἱ ᾿Αριστοβούλου, οἱ Ναρκίσσου, 1 Cor. i. 11 οἱ Χλόης, 
Acts xvi. 33 αὐτὸς (ὁ δεσμοφύλαξ) καὶ οἱ αὐτοῦ, for which in vs. 32 we 
have ot ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ ; and transferred to the followers of Christ, 

1 Cor. xv. 23; Gal. v. 24 οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. But in Luke v. 33 μαθηταί 
is to be supplied from what precedes, and in Mark ii. 18 οἱ Φαρισαῖοι 
is the better reading [so Tdf. Treg., after » etc.]. 

Remark. Respecting the (doubtful) combinations εἰς gdov, ἐν 
Αἰγύπτου, see ὃ 132, 27 p. 171. 


Β. § 125, N. 6; H. § 568; C. § 528; D. p. 857; J. p. 111 sq. 

In general, the designation of persons and things by the 9 
simple article (οἱ, τό, τά) with a Genitive or an adverbial 
limitation following, is by no means uncommon; and the ex- 
amples from the classics may be matched in abundance from 
the N. T. Thus with a Gen. following: τὰ Καίσαρος, τὰ τῆς 
σαρκός, TA τοῦ πνεύματος, TA τοῦ πατρός μου, τὰ τῆς αὔριον, TO 
τῆς συκῆς, τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας, τὰ ἑαυτῶν ζητοῦσιν, ete. ; 
with an adverbial adjunct following: οἱ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ, ἀπὸ 
Κιλικίας, ἀπὸ ᾿Ιταλίας, ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας, ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ" οἱ 
ἐκ περιτομῆς, ἐκ πίστεως" τὰ περὶ ἐμέ, πρὸς τὴν χρείαν, κατὰ 
τὸν Παῦλον, διὰ τοῦ σώματος " τὸ ἐκ μέρους (1 Cor. xiii. 10 [A.V. 
that which is in part], Luth. Stiickwerk), τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν (ef. ὃ 128, 
2 p. 123), τὰ πρὸς τὴν θύραν (Mark ii. 2 the entrance-hall), etc. 


B. $125, 6 and 7; H. § 492; C. § 526; D. 8 400; J. § 456. 

The same holds true in reference to the use of adverbs with {0 
the art. in lieu of adjectives, as ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, ὁ τότε κόσμος, 
ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος, TH ἑξῆς ἡμέρᾳ, ἡ ἄνωθεν σοφία, etc , and with 
the omission of the substantive: ὁ πλησίον, οἱ ἔξω, εἰς τὸ πέραν, 
τὰ ὀπίσω, τῇ σήμερον, ἐπαύριον, ἑξῆς, etc. 

Remark. Far more rarely will adverbs or adverbial phrases be {| 
found joined to a subst. that is not provided with the article or 


84 


12 


13 


96 ARTICLE BEFORE £NTIRE SENTENCES. [8 125 


another attributive, in particular a participle. Such combinations the 


language sought to avoid in order to preclude possible misunder- 
standings, to which in the other case, by the insertion of the adverbial 
qualification between the art. and the subst., the author was not ex- 
posed. Yet such combinations have been occasionally permitted, 
where the context is of such a nature as to exclude in advance every 
ambiguity ; as, for example, in 2 Cor. xi. 28 sq., where κίνδυνοι ἐκ γένους, 
ἐν ἐρημίᾳ, ἐν θαλάσσῃ, ἐν νηστείαις πολλάκις, ἐν κόποις περισσοτέρως, 
stand in the relation spoken of. But elsewhere, also, especially in the 
Epistles, the interpreter has often found himself compelled to refer 


adverbial limitations of this sort away from the predicate, and to con- 


nect them immediately with preceding or following substantives 
destitute of both art. aid attributive,—substantives which for the 
most part are either abstract terms (that according to § 124, 8 p. 89 
often stand without the art.), or verbals whose stem-verb is capable 
of a similar construction (cf. 2 p. 92). This procedure must be 
regarded as the more permissible in the N. T., as we have seen above 
(2 p. 91) there are so many combinations likewise grammatically 
loose in which the adverbial adjunct is subjoined to the subst. without 
the repetition of the article. Thus Mark (i. 23) says briefly ἄνθρωπος 
ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ a man (afflicted) with an unclean spirit, in 1 Cor. 
xii. 31 καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν δὃδόν is explained by an excellent way, Eph. vi. 23 
ἀγάπη μετὰ πίστεως, Gal. v.5 πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως, 1 Tim. ii. 7 διδάσκαλος 
ἐθνῶν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ (cf. § 131, 6 p. 149), Rom. xiv. 17 χαρὰ ἐν 
πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (according to ὃ 133, 23 p. 185), ete. 


Β. § 125, N. 8; H. § 552a.; C. § 529; Ὁ. p. 502; J. § 456. 

Besides the adverbial expression τὸ λοιπόν (Matt. xxvi. 45, etc.), 
λοιπόν, also, without the art. is often used adverbially ; see ὃ 128, 2 
p- 123. The following also stand adverbially: τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν Luke 
xix. 47; Acts xvii. 11 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7], τὸ πλεῖστον 1 Cor. xiv. 27, τὸ 
ἐξ ὑμῶν Rom. xii. 18, τὰ πολλά xv. 22. 


THE ARTICLE BEFORE ENTIRE SENTENCES. 
B. § 125,N.9; ©. § 491; D. $400; J. § 457. 

The practice of introducing entire clauses by the neuter 
article τό is not uncommon in the N. T. It occurs, 1) before 
passages quoted in full or in part, which in this way are made 
parts of the sentence; and, 2) before indirect interrogative 
clauses, especially in Luke. i 

Examples of 1) are Matt. xix. 18 τὸ Οὐ φονεύσεις, od μοιχεύσεις etc., 
Gal. v. 14 ὃ νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ ᾿Αγαπήσεις etc., Rom. 
xiii. 9; Eph. iv. 9 (τὸ ἀνέβη), Heb. xii. 27 (τὸ ἔτι ἅπαξ), Luke xxii. 


§125.] ART. WITH SUBSTS. CONNECTED BY CONJUNCTIONS. 97 


87 Tdf. ['Treg., cod. Sin.}; of 2) Luke i. 62 évévevov τῷ πατρὶ τὸ τί 
ἂν θέλοι καλεῖσθαι αὐτό, ix. 46; xix. 48; xxii. 2 ἐζήτουν τὸ πῶς ἀνέλω- 
σιν αὐτόν, Xxii. 28, 24; Acts iv. 21; v. 24 (τὸ τί γένοιτο, according to 
Sin.), xxii. 80. Cf. also Rom. viii. 26; 1 Thess. iv.1. See the com- 
mentaries respecting the extremely difficult passage Mark ix. 23, which 
according to Lchm. (praef. I. p.44; 11. p.7) needs emendation, and is 
Jeft dubious by the mss. 


Tae ARTICLE WITH SEVERAL SUBSTANTIVES CONNECTED BY CONJUNCTIONS. 
B. § 125, 10; C. § 534; J. 859, 9; cf. 5. p. xv. 

It will probably never be possible, either in reference to 
profane literature or to the N. T., to bring down to rigid rules 
which have no exception, the inquiry when with several sub- 
stantives connected by conjunctions the article is repeated, 
and when it is not. Nevertheless, it is the business of the 
grammarian to set forth certain established linguistic principles 
as the foundation of grammatical usage, and to trace back 
deviations even, as far as possible, to their analogies. 


From this fact alone it follows, that in view of the subjective and 
arbitrary treatment of the art. on the part of individual writers (cf. 
§ 124, 2 p. 85), it is very hazardous in particular cases to draw im- 
portant inferences, affecting the sense or even of a doctrinal nature, 
from the single circumstance of the use or the omission of the article ; 
see e.g. Tit. ii. 18; Jude 4; 2 Pet.i. 1 and the expositors of these 
passages, and cf. 17 ὁ) below, p. 100. Such inferences are the more 
precarious, as, moreover, amid the conflict of variations, the reading 
often can hardly be settled as yet; and the recent editors, therefore, 
differ very much on this point. | 


1) If the connected substantives are of the same gender and 
number and without attributives, it holds as a general 
rule that, a) when the substantives may be regarded as parts of 
one whole, as terms belonging together and related or comple- 
mentary, it is enough to use the article but once; but, b) if 
they denote contrasted, or at least independent, objects or 
notions, to be conceived of as separate, the article is repeated. 
Nevertheless, the language is by no means bound by this rule, 
well founded though it is in the nature of things. The ex- 
planation of this, however, lies not in the negligent style of the 
writers, but in the impossibility, as a matter of fact, of drawing 
a sharp boundary between the two cases. In particular, (a) 


in the first case we often tind the article repeated, because the 
13 


85 


15 


86 


16 


98 ART. WITH SUBSTS. CONNECTED BY CONJUNCTIONS. [8 125. 


writer, even when the identity is almost complete, may, if he 
will, mention the members as members, consequently each by 
itself, without incurring the danger of being ambiguous. In 
point of fact, at least half of the examples adduced by Winer 
p. 128 (122) consist of such cases, where similar ideas are con- 
nected and yet each has the article. On the other hand, (b) 
in the second case, i.e. with members which are necessarily to 
be thought of as separate, we but very rarely find only a single 
article used, since in such circumstances the mind demands 
the repetition of the article, and its omission can only take 
place where the following term, viewed by itself, may also 
for some reason be used without the art. 

The remarks which have been made will be elucidated by 
the following examples: 


on a). That with terms of kindred nature the art. is now omitted, 
now repeated, even by one and the same writer, is seen in the nu- 
merous combinations of the words ἀρχιερεῖς, γραμματεῖς, πρεσβύτεροι, 
Φαρισαῖοι, in the Gospels. Thus they occur, for instance, in Matt. 
(according to the text of Lchm.) with but a single art. in ii. 4; xvi. 21; 
xx. 18; xxvi. 47; xxvii. 3, 41, with a repetition of the art. in xxi. 
15, 23, 45; xxvi. 3; xxvii. 1, 12, 20, 62; and so, too, in the other 
Gospels. Further, in Luke xv. 6 we read συγκαλεῖ τοὺς φίλους καὶ 
τοὺς γείτονας, but directly afterwards in vs. 9 τὰς φίλας καὶ γείτονας 
(where Rec, adds a second τὰς) ; likewise also with associated proper 
names, Acts xv. 22 σὺν τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ Βαρνάβᾳ, but in xiii. 43 ete. τῷ 
Il. καὶ τῷ B. Other instances of the repetition of the art. with 
words which are manifestly related or belong together are Mark vi. 21; 
xiii. 17; Luke i. 52; xi. 39,42; xii.11; xx. 20; Johnii. 14 (cf. Luke 
xix. 45 Lchm.); Acts xv. 4, 6 (ef. xv. 2); Rom. vi. 19; Col. ii. 3 Tdf. 
(θαυ 64.817 Lehm.[Treg. δὲ} om. second τῆς) ; Rev. vi. 15; vii. 12, ete. 

on b). On the other hand, that in the second case the art. is almost 
indispensable, we see plainly from Acts xxvi. 30 ἀνέστη ὃ βασιλεὺς καὶ 
ὁ ἡγεμών, where if the second art. were omitted we should think of 
but a single person. Or if we look at 1 Cor. iii. 8 ὁ φυτεύων καὶ 6 
ποτίζων ἕν εἶσιν, or compare Mark xi. 9 οἱ προάγοντες καὶ of ἀκολουθοῦντες 
with 2 John 9 ὁ προάγων καὶ μὴ μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ, We recognize the 
difference between the two forms of expression instantly. See more 
instances of the legitimate repetition of the art. in this case in Winer 
128 (122), many of which, however, belong to 1 p. 90. 

Remark. Where several terms are predicated of one and 
the same object, the article of necessity can only be used once, 
because otherwise uncertainty would arise resvecting the meaning. 


§125.] ART. WITH SUBSTS. CONNECTED BY CONJUNCTIONS. 99 


This appears further from the phrases, 6 θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ Col. iii. 17; 
Eph. i. 3; Phil. iv. 20; 2 Cor. i. 3; 1 Pet. i. 3; Jas. iii. 9, etc.; τοῦ 
κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος 2 Pet. ii. 20 Tdf. [Treg.]; iii. 2, etc., Mark vi. 3 
6 vids Μαρίας καὶ ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου, Acts iii. 14 τὸν ἅγιον καὶ δίκαιον 
ἠρνήσασθε, ‘Tit. i. 15, etc. Likewise with participles used substan- 
tively, John xxi. 24 ὃ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων καὶ γράψας ταῦτα, Gal. i. 7 
ol ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες etc., Phil. iii. 3 of ... λατρεύοντες καὶ 
καυχώμενοι, 1 Tim. iv.8; Luke vi. 49; 2 John 9; see other examples 
belonging to this head under 17 and 18 below. This is the case, also, 
even with contrasted predicates (with ἀλλά) 2 Thess. ii. 12. On the 
other hand, Acts xvii. 18; 2 Thess. iii. 2; 1 Tim. iv. 7, etc., may be 
regarded simply as the insertion of two adjectives. 


2) If the connected members are of the same gender and 
number, and a) one of them, no matter which, is provided with 
an attributive limitation which is to be referred to the 
two (or more) members, as a rule the article is not repeated ; 
or b) if the attributive is connected with one of the members 
and not to be referred to the other, the art. is used with each 
member ; or c) if each member is provided with its own attrib- 
utive, the case is essentially the same as that above in 15, and 
the art. is either repeated or dropped, under the same circum- 
stances as there. Since, however, examples to the contrary are 
not wanting under a) and b) also, it is plain that all rules of 
this sort, though grammatically well-founded, are not altogether 
unyielding; but that, over and above them, the law of pers- 
picuity, or the writer’s desire in a particular case to render 
more perceptible either the independence of the members or 
their similarity and connection, has great influence over the 
use and the omission of the article. 

What has been said will be rendered clear by the following 
examples: 


ona) Without the repetition of the art.: Rom. i. 20 7 τε ἀΐδιος 
αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης, 2 Cor. i. 6; Heb. iii. 1; Phil. i. 19, 20 κατὰ 
τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα pov, 1 Thess. ii. 12; iii. 7 ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ 
ἀνάγκῃ καὶ θλίψει ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν πίστεως, 1 Pet. ii. 25; 2 Pet. i. 10, 
11; ii. 20 Lehm. [ΤᾺ], Eph. iii. 5 Tdf. [eds. 2,7], etc. | Exceptions: 
Eph. iii. 10 rats ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, iii. 12; 
1 Cor. xi. 27 τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου, Acts xxv. 15; 
Rey. xiii. 10. In the account of the expulsion of the traders from 
the temple we read in Matt. (xxi. 12), according to the rule, τοὺς 
πωλοῦγτας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ; on the other hand, in Mark xi. 


87 


88 
18 


100 ART. WITH SUBSTS. CONNECTED BY CONJUNCTIONS. [§ 125 


15 τοὺς πωλοῦντας Kai τοὺς ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ; in Luke xix. 45 
Lchm. again, according to the rule, τοὺς πωλοῦντας ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἀγορά- 
ζοντας; but in Johnii. 14 τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς 
καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, Where καθημένους manifestly belongs 
to both classes, but perspicuity required the repetition of the article. 

on Ὁ) With the repetition of the art.: when the attributive limi- 
tation is used with the first member; Mark vi. 21 τοῖς μεγιστᾶσιν 
αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς χιλιάρχοις, 1 Cor. i. 28; v.10 (where with four members 
the art. quite regularly is repeated only once, since the limiting genitive 
τοῦ κόσμου τούτου belongs by position only to τοῖς πόρνοις, although 
according to the sense it may be referred to the following members 
also, which again, as expressing kindred ideas, have the art. in common), 
Acts vi. 13. When the attributive limitation stands with the second 
member; Luke i. 58 οἱ περίοικοι καὶ of συγγενεῖς αὐτῆς, viii. 24; Acts 
vi. 4; xiii. 43; 1 Tim. iv. 6 τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας, 
2 Cor. xiii. 2 rots προημαρτηκόσιν καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσι. Exceptions 
(respecting which cf. the Remark, 16 above): Col. ii. 8 τῆς φιλοσοφίας 
καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης, 2 John 9. Respecting Acts xv. 23 Lchm. [Tdf. 
Treg. ],see Meyer. It is apparent, moreover, that ambiguity is in 
every instance avoided by the position of the attributive limitation 
(either before or after the subst.). 

on c) (With all which the examples in 15 are to be compared) — 
with the repetition of the art.: Mark xi. 15 τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυ- 
βιστῶν καὶ τὰς καθέδρας τῶν πωλούντων, 1 Thess. iii. 11; 1 John iv. 6 
τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης, Rev. xi. 4; without 
the repetition of the art.: 2 Thess. i. 12 τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου ‘I. Xp. 
cf. 2 Pet. i. 1, etc.; Tit. ii. 13 (see 14 p. 97), Phil. i. 19 (because 
ὑμῶν is to be referred to both members), iii. 10 Lchm. ['Treg.] (where 
the addition of τὴν is not at all necessary, at least grammatically), 
Jude 4 (see 14 p. 97), 2 Cor. i. 8 ὃ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν Kal θεὸς πάσης 
παρακλήσεως (according to 16 p. 98sq.), 1 Tim. vi. 15 (cf. 16 p. 98 sq.). 


8) If the connected nouns differ in gender, the article 
is as a rule repeated, since in such a case for two (or more) 
nouns, Whether kindred or dissimilar, one article is no longer 
sufficies t; thus, Eph. vi. 2 τέμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα, 
Luke x. 21 κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, xiv. 26; Rom. viii. 2 
νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου, xvi. 17; Col. iv. 1; Tit. i. 
15, etc., and there ought properly to be no deviation from this 
usage. : 3 


Only in very rare cases does the language take the liberty to deviate, 
viz. where it makes a decided gain in perspicuity by omitting the 
article, a3 with substantiv2s so closely united as to make almost a unity 


§ 126.| THE ARTICLE AS A DEMONSTRATIVE. 6οῬΣὀι 4) 


(6 μὲν σωφρονῶν καὶ σωφρονοῦσα Plato), or when according to 2) a. an 
attributive limitation is to be referred to both nouns, or further, where 
the addition of the art. would have occasioned inconvenience in some 
way, as Luke xiv. 23 εἰς tas ὁδοὺς καὶ φραγμούς, Mark xii. 33 πάντων 
τῶν ὁλοκαυτωμάτων Kal θυσιῶν (where the addition of τῶν after the Rec. 
is positively wrong, on account of πάντων which is manifestly to be 
referred to both), Luke i. 6; Col. ii. 22 κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκα- 
Nias τῶν ἀνθρώπων, Rev. v. 12 τὴν δύναμιν καὶ πλοῦτον Kai σοφίαν καὶ 
ἰσχύν etc., Acts xxi. 25 τό τε εἰδωλόθυτον καὶ αἷμα καὶ πνικτὸν καὶ πορνείαν 
(cf., on the other hand, xv. 20 Tdf.). 

4) If the connected nouns differ also in number, the 
genius of the language renders the repetition of the article 
still more necessary (Col. ii. 13 ἐν τοῖς παρωπτώμασιν καὶ τῇ 
ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, Eph. ii. 8, etc.), and no examples 
to the contrary are found in the N. T. That 1 Cor. iv. 9 
establishes no exception, Winer 127 (121), deWette, and others 
have already observed.! 


Tue ARTICLE (PREPOSITIVE AND PosTPOSITIVE) AS A DEMONSTRATIVE. 
B. § 126, 2and 8; H. § 525; C. 8 ὅ18; D. p.345; J. § 444. 

The use of the prepositive article standing alone as a de- 
monstrative, which was always rather poetic, and accordingly 
restricted in ordinary prose to single phrases, is still more rare 
in the N. T., and, strictly speaking, appears there only in the 
combinations ὁ μέν and ὁ δέ, (for the poetic quotation in Acts 
xvii. 28 cannot be taken into account). But even these com- 
binations, also, have been retained only where they take the 
place of the subject, and moreover are in the Masc. or Fem. 


1 On this whole subject cf. Jatho, Brief an ἃ. Phil. Exc. IV., who, however, has 
arranged all the examples under the single classification of union and separation 
of ideas. Important and influential as this distribution in itself considered is, it 
is nevertheless always an erroneous and one-sided procedure to group the phe- 
nomena of speech only according to such abstract classifications, —a procedure 
which is the more detrimental to grammar as, owing to their elasticity, it is easy to 
succeed in bringing under them the great majority of phenomena. Form and 
substance have always, with the N. T. authors as well as with profane writers, 
at least an equal share in the structure of discourse; and to deny the effect of 
all the more external influences upon the choice of expressions would be to deprive 
authors of the instincts of speech. But to lay down the above classification as the 
only one leads to a disregard of the formal principle; a disregard which betrays 
itself, among other ways, in the above-mentioned essay in this: that the author 
(on p. 79) unhesitatingly lays down the principle that in applying this rule it does 
not make the least difference whether the nouns to be connected are of the same 
or different gender, (why not, then, number also 1). 


90 


1(2 THE ARTICLE AS A DEMONSTRATIVE. [5 126 


6, ἡ, οἱ, ac; so that all the cases beginning with 7 (τό and τὰ 
included) must be left out of view. In the oblique cases, as 
well as in the Nom. neuter, the form of the postpositive, more 
usual in later prose, everywhere makes its appearance ; so that 
now all these combinations begin with the rough breathing: 
ὁ δέ, of μέν (Heb. xii. 10), ἃ μέν (Matt. xili. 4), ὃ μέν... ὃ δέ 
Cib. 8), ὃν, ᾧ, ods μέν, etc. 

The only exception, and that, too, more apparent than real, is Eph. 
iv. 11 (ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας etc.) ; for in Mark 
xii. 5 the reading τοὺς μέν is now set aside by ms. authority [ Sin. also]. 
In the Nom. Masc. the form of the postpositive sometimes appears 
instead of that of the prepositive, e.g. ὃς μὲν... ὃς δέ Matt. xxii. 5; 
Rom. xiv. 5, 2; 1 Cor. xi. 21, or the mss. vary, as in 1 Cor. vii. 7; 
John v. 11 Lehm. [ Treg. }. 


B. § 126,4; H. § 625 y.; C. §518e.; D. § 390; J. ὃ 444. 

Examples of this use (of ὃ δέ alone as a connective in narration in 
reference to an object already named) can be brought forward in great 
number, yet only from the historical writings of the N. T. Let it be 
noticed, too, that in this case only the forms of the prepositive (6, 7, 
oi, ai) are chosen, hence the exception (John v. 11 Lcehm. [Treg.] ds 
δὲ ἀπεκρίθη) appears suspicious; even here cod. Sin. has 6 δέ as usual ; 
on the other hand, in one other passage (Mark xv. 23 [Tdf. Treg.]) both 
the oldest mss. give ὃς δέ, but in opposition to [nearly] all other ms. 
authorities. The combination καὶ ds, καὶ ot (B. § 126, 5) does not oceur. 


B. § 126, N. 4; H. § 525 a.; C. $518; D. p.576; J. § 764. 

Of the variations usual in classic Greek instead of ὃ μέν... ὃ δέ, the 
following are found in the Ν. T.: Matt. xvi. 14 Lchm. of μέν ... of 
δέ (Ταῦ [Treg.] ἄλλοι δέ) ... ἕτεροι δέ, John vii. 12 Lehm. [Treg.] οἱ 
μέν... ἄλλοι δέ (Tdf. ἄλλοι, see ὃ 149, 13 b) p. 366) cf. 1 Cor. xii. 8; 
Acts xvii. 18 τινές ... of δέ, Mark iv. 4 ὃ μέν ... καὶ ἄλλο, Luke viii. 5 
ὃ pe... καὶ ἕτερον. On 1 Cor. xii. 28 see § 149, 12 b) p. 365. 

Further, under this head belong the various and rather Hebraistic 
constructions with εἷς (shy... 39x Exod. xvii. 12; 1 Sam. x. 3), of 
which the following approximate most nearly to Greek usage: 6 εἷς 

. ὁ δὲ ἕτερος Luke vii. 41 cf. Acts xxiii. 6 ; less so: 6 eis... καὶ 6 ἕτερος 
Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 13; xvii. 85 Lchm., etc.; without the art. 
eis... καὶ 6 ἕτερος Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 13; xvii. 34 Tdf. [Treg. | 
etc., μία [ἡ μία Tdf., cod. Sin.]... ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα xvii. 35 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]; 
also ὁ els... ὃ ἄλλος (but in reference to the last two of seven) Rey. 
xvii. 10; οὗ § 127, 88 p. 122. Those constructions seem to come 
nearest to the Hebrew usage in which εἷς is repeated. As, however, 


§ 127.] PRONOUNS. — 103 


according to recent editors the article in this case is always 
dropped, and the expression is employed in reference to more than 
two members, its origin may quite as well be found in that mode of 
speech, natural to common people, which arises from a simple enumer- 
ation of the several members (just as in German) ; as, εἷς ... καὶ εἷς 
Matt. xx. 21; xxiv. 40; Mark xv. 27; John xx. 12; Gal. iv. 22; 
compare with this the circumlocution for ἀλλήλων p. 31. Luke uses 
this combination only in the single passage ix. 33 (as in the parallel 
passages Matt. xvii. 4; Mark ix. 5), in an enumeration of more than 
two members. After what has been said, the reading of Grsb. Lchm. 
etc. in that passage of critical difficulty Mark iv. 8, 20 — according to 
which in both verses the word ἕν (without the art.) is thrice repeated — 
gains much in intrinsic probability, [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin. give εἰς thrice 
in vs. 8, ἐν in vs. 20]; see p. 80. Lastly, in Gal. iv. 24 the enumer- 
ation, begun with pia μὲν, is continued in vs. 26 by another and similar 
construction which connects closely with what precedes. 


PRONOUNS. 
οὗτος AND ὅϑε, ἐκεῖνος. 
Β. 8. 127,1 Ὁ.; H. 8 679; C. 8 δ44; Ὁ. Ρ. 819; J. 8 657 sq. 

The difference spoken of between οὗτος and ὅδε (that οὗτος 
refers ordinarily to what precedes, ὅδε to what follows), although 
individual cases in support of it might be adduced from the 
N. T. (Rev. ii. 1, 8, 12, etc.), has lost there its general validity, 
inasmuch as the use of ὅδε (τοιόσδε, τοσόσδεν) is quite isolated, 
in fact doubtful (Luke xvi. 25 Grsb. ; Acts xv. 23 Grsb. ; 2 Cor. 
xii. 19 Grsb.). The N. T. language employs in all cases 
almost exclusively the other demonstrative forms οὗτος, τοιοῦτος, 
etc. 

“Τὰ James iv. 13 σήμερον καὶ αὔριον πορευσόμεθα εἰς τήνδε τὴν 
πόλιν, according to the interpreters τήνδε has the force of an indefinite: 
this Ὁ) that. As proof of this use, a passage is cited from Plut. Symp. 
1, ὃ, 1 where τὴνδε τὴν ἡμέραν is thought to have this signification. 
Such, however, is not the case; on the contrary, in Plutarch, as 
everywhere in Greek authors, the pronoun has its full 
demonstrative force. Accordingly we are not warranted in this single 
biblical passage in taking the pronoun in any other than the demon- 
strative sense. The apostle intended, to be sure, any city at option, 
yet in thought he could point it out definitely ; very much as we, too, 
say in a similar case: into this city here (Germ. in diese Stadt da). 

The familiar Latin usage, according to which, when two 
objects are spoken of, whatever be the position of the words, 


΄ 
. 


91 


104 PRONOUNS. ces [8.127 


hic refers to that which at the moment is nearest the thought 
of the writer and idle to the more distant substantive, is quite 
applicable in Greek prose to the two demonstratives οὗτος and 
éxeivos. In the N. T., however, there are but few passages 
where both demonstrative pronouns make reference in one 
and the same proposition to two different ideas previously 
mentioned (see Luke xviii. 14; John v. 38, and ef. Jas. iv. 15). 
In these passages, as well as in others where οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος 
occur alone, it can be plainly seen that οὗτος always refers 
to the leading subject directly under discussion, and ἐκεῖνος to 
another, ordinarily more distant. Yet the writer in using 
οὗτος does not allow himself to be disturbed by the accidental 
proximity of another substantive, especially when the con- 
nection manifestly excludes every false reference ; and on the 
other hand, he can for the same reason safely make reference 
by means of ἐκεῖνος to an object which as respects the thought 
is subordinate, though as respects position it is nearer. Of. 
my Article on ἐκεῖνος in the Stud. τι. Krit. for 1860 pp. 505 sqq., 
and the supplement in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. Bd. V. pp. 204 sqq. 


In Acts vii. 19; 2 John 7, οὗτος does not occasion the slightest 
doubt or ambiguity. In 1 John v. 20, also, an impartial interpreter 
can refer οὗτος only to θεός, and αὕτη in Acts viii. 26 only to ἡ ὁδός 
(for this is the subject of discourse, not T'éfa which is used merely to 
designate the way more precisely). Just as plainly does ἐκεῖνος in 
Acts ili. 18 refer to Pilate, and in Matt. xvii. 27 to στατήρ. Acts iv. 
10 sq. may serve to prove how little is to be conceded to the external 
position, and how, when the connection is plain of itself, the author 
confides in the reader’s good sense. Here there was occasion enough 
for perspicuity’s sake to use the two demonstratives alternately ; yet 
οὗτος stands three times in succession: first (ἐν τούτῳ) referring to 
ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ (although ὃ θεός just precedes), then (otros) to the 
lame man, and the third time (οὗτος) again to Ἰησοῦς. 

There is an analogy to the familiar Latin use of hie also in speci- 
fications of time (ante hos quinque annos) in Acts i. 5 οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς 
ταύτας ἡμέρας after not many days from this; where, moreover, the 
position of the words (instead of μετ᾽ οὐ πολλάς) is to be noticed. 
Similar instances are found in the (later) Greek writers, see Winer 
161 (152). 

B. $127, 14.; H. 8.810; C. §551f.; J §817, 4. 

The omission of the demonstrative bef κ the relative is so 

common in the N.T., that it is hardly worth while to adduce examples 


§ 127.] CONSTR. AD SYN. WITH DEM#NSTRATIVES. 105 


of this general custom. That in this respect the writers have made 
the classic usage quite their own may be seen from the following 
passages (the examples where attraction occurs besides, will be found 
§ 143, 10 p. 286): John xviii. 26 συγγενὴς ὧν οὗ ἀπέκοψεν ἹΠέτρος τὸ 
ὠτίον, Mark xv. 12 Tdf. τί θέλετε ποιήσω ὃν λέγετε τὸν βασιλέα τῶν 
Ἰουδαίων (respecting the Acc. after ποιεῖν see ὃ 131, 6 p. 149); and 
when the Cases differ: Luke vii. 47 ᾧ δὲ ὀλίγον ἀφίεται, ὀλίγον ἀγαπᾷ, 
John xi. 3 ἴδε ὃν φιλεῖς ἀσθενεῖ, Rom. iv. 7 μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέθησαν αἱ 
ἀνομίαι ; or are dependent, variously, upon prepositions: 2 Cor. xi. 12 
ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καυχῶνται εὑρεθῶσιν καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς (for ἐν τούτῳ ἐν ᾧ, see ὃ 133, 
23 p. 185), Rom. x. 14 πῶς ἐπικαλέσωνται εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν (for 
τοῦτον εἰς ὅν), John vi. 29 ἵνα πιστεύσητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν (for εἰς τοῦτον 
ὅν), Heb. vii. 18 ἐφ᾽ ὃν λέγεται ταῦτα, φυλῆς ἑτέρας μετέσχηκεν (for 
οὗτος ἐφ᾽ ὅν) etc. On Rom. vi. 21 ef. ὃ 148, 4 Ὁ) p. 282. In this way 
many Relative conjunctional phrases have arisen, as ἀνθ᾽ ὧν because (of 
this) that, ἐξ οὗ since (the time that), ad’ οὗ, ἐν ᾧ, ete., see ὃ 147 under 
the several prepositions. 

Before Relative adverbs, also, the demonstratives are fre- 
quently dropped: and that, too, not only when they express similar 
relations (there ... where, etc.) e.g. John xx. 19 τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων, 
ὅπου ἦσαν ot μαθηταί, 1 Cor. xvi. 6 iva με προπέμψητε οὗ ἐὰν πορεύωμαι 
(for οὗ here answers to the question whither, see p. 71), but also dis- 
similar (thither ... where) —a case which with the N. T. authors was 
very common, in consequence of the want of precision just mentioned 
in the use of adverbs of place (cf. besides § 151, 2 p. 377); as, John 
xi. 82 ἦλθεν ὅπου ἦν, vi. 62 ἀναβαίνοντα ὅπου ἦν, Mark v. 40 εἰσπορεύεται 
ὅπου ἦν i.e. ἐκεῖσε (Or ἐκεῖ) ὅπου. 

Respecting attraction in such cases see ὃ 143, 12 p. 287. 


Β, § 127, 1e.; J. 657, 2. 

Οὗτος is often used redundantly, or rather in reference to what 
follows, before propositions introduced by ὅτι; as, John iii. 19 αὕτη 
ἐστὶν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν etc. Rom. ii. 3 λογίζῃ δὲ τοῦτο ... 
ὅτι ἐκφεύξῃ τὸ κρῖμα; 2 Cor. i. 12, ete. Likewise before ἵνα, --- re- 
specting which in its connection § 139, 45 p. 240. On the introductory 
τοῦτο before infinitive clauses see ὃ 140, 7 and 9 pp. 262 sq. 


ConsTRUCTIO Av SYNESIN WITH THE DEMONSTRATIVES, ESPECIALLY WITH 
αὐτός. 


The const uctio ad synesin as respects gender and number 
takes place, as with the relative (see § 148, 4 p. 281), so, too, 
of course with the demonstrative. As this usage harmonizes 


completely with the genius of the Greek language (B. § 148, 5; 
14 


93 


106 CONSTR. AD SYN. WITH DEMONSTRATIVES. [§ 127. 


Η. § 528; Ὁ. § 498 sq.; Ὁ. p. 862; J. § 818 sqq.), it is sufficient 
here to refer to examples: Matt. i. 21 (λαὸν... αὐτῶν, xiv. 
14 and Mark vi. 46 (ὄχλον ... αὐτοῖς), Matt. xxviii. 19 (ἔθνη 
... avtovs), Rom. ii. 14 (ἔθνη ... οὗτοι), Mark v. 41 (παιδίον 
... αὐτῇ), 2 Cor. v. 19 (κόσμον ... αὐτοῖς), Col. ii. 15 (τὰς 
ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας ... αὐτούς). ὃ Jolm 9. (ἐκκλησία ... 
αὐτῶν), Rev. xvii. 16 (τὰ κέρατα καὶ τὸ θηρίον ... οὗτοι) ; 
1 John v. 21 (texvia ... ἑαυτούς Tdf. [eds. 2, 17] ἑαυτά Lehm. 
[Tdf. Treg.]) is doubtful. Respecting John xvii. 2 (πᾶν .., 
αὐτοῖς) see ὃ 128, 1 p. 122. 

Remark. It is an extension of the above usage (an extensicn which 
occurs likewise with the relative), to employ the most general of the 
demonstratives (αὐτός) in reference to a substantive not expressly 
mentioned but only so far as the sense is concerned con- 
tained in what precedes. Thus John viii. 44 ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὃ πατὴρ 
αὐτοῦ sc. τοῦ Wevdous,' Rom. ii. 26 ἡ ἀκροβυστία ... αὐτοῦ sc. τοῦ ἐν ἀκρ. 
ὄντος, Eph. v. 12 τὰ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν se. the children of darkness, to 
be supplied from σκότος and τέκνα φωτός preceding, John xy. 6 where 
we find συνάγουσιν αὐτά, owing to the neut. κλῆμα and the plurality 
suggested in tis, Gal. iii. 12 ὁ ποιήσας αὐτά sc. τὰ τοῦ νόμου. Not 
less customary is it to employ the Plural αὐτοί in referring to the 
inhabitants of a place or country already mentioned, e.g. 2 Cor. ii. 12 sq. 
(Tpwada ... αὐτοῖς), Matt. iv. 23 (Γαλιλαίᾳ ... αὐτῶν), ix. 85; Acts 
viii. 5 (Σαμαρείας ... αὐτοῖς), xx. 2; 1 Thess. i. 9; so that at length 
the plur. αὐτοί comes to denote in an indefinite way the general idea 
of people, and the reader is left to judge for himself according to the 
connection what persons or classes of men stand in necessary relation 
to the substance of the statement. So e.g. in 1 Pet. iii. 14 τὸν φόβον 
αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε, where αὐτῶν means the many suggested in τίς ὃ 
κακώσων ὑμᾶς ; cf. Heb. iv. 8; viii. 8; xi. 28; Acts iv. 5 τοὺς ἄρχοντας 
αὐτῶν viz. of the Jews, Matt. xii. 9 τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν viz. of the 
Galileans (see deWette on iv. 23), Acts x. 10 παρασκευαζόντων αὐτῶν 
viz. the inmates of the house, Matt. xix. 2 ὄχλοι πολλοί, καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν 
αὐτούς Viz. τοὺς ἀρρώστους αὐτῶν according to xiv. 14; ef. xii. 15; Luke 
v.17. According to this usage, too, the indefinite interpretation of 
αὐτῶν in Matt. xi. 1, and of αὐτοῖς in viii. 4; Mark i. 44; Luke ν. 14, 
seems to be perfectly justified. On the other hand, in Acts xii. 21 


1 This is the current interpretation according to the well-established reading. 
Yet even ancient expositors took exception to it, and Lachmann, following them, 
proposes (Vol. II. p. vii of Preface) to read ὃς ἄν for ὅταν. Then the meaning 
would be somewhat altered as follows : whoever speaketh a lie (cf. Ignat. Ep. interp. 
p- 283 ed. Dressel ἐόν τις Χριστὸν ἀρνῆται υἱὸν εἶναι Θεοῦ) speaketh his own peculiar 
language, because his father also (ὃ διάβολος) is a liar. 


§ 127.] THE USE OF THE PRONOUN αὐτός. 107 


ἐδημηγόρει πρὸς αὐτούς means definitely to the Tyrians and Sidonians 
(vs. 20). 
Tue Usr or THE PRONOUN αὐτός, 
B. $127, 2and N.1; H. 8 668; C. §540i.; Ὁ. p. 875; J. § 656. 

No pronoun appears more frequently in the Scriptures of 
the Old and New Testaments than αὐτός ; indeed, this pronoun 
is employed to such excess (cf. 26 below p. 118, and §129, 12 
Ρ. 131, § 180, 2 p. 142, § 145, 1 p. 314), that it contributes 
essentially to the peculiar character which distinguishes biblical 
from classical Greek. | 

As respects the pronoun’s signification, the ordinary rules 
(B. p. 307; Η. ὃ 669; 6. 8 540sq.; Ὁ. p. 462; J.§ 656) hold 
good in the main; but in the Nominative there is a notice- 
able departure from classic usage. Winer 150 (141 5α.), 
Fritzsche (ad Matt. p. 47), and others assert, indeed, that (as 
in the classics) αὐτός in the Nominative never stands for the 
unemphatic fe, inasmuch as then it is used, either 1) for Jesus 
in contrast with his disciples, or 2) with a certain emphasis, 
or 3) only in definite antithesis to other objects. Although it 
is true that the majority of passages allow themselves to be 
distributed among these three classes, yet we have not, by 
doing this, demonstrated the agreement of the biblical use 
with the classical; and besides, there are passages enough 
where there is absolutely no hint of emphasis or of antithesis 
and common classic prose would in no case have employed 
αὐτός, ----- an assertion which can be made also even of most of 
the passages where αὐτός represents Christ. 


We will endeavor to make what we have said plain by a number 
of examples from the Gospels, especially from Luke, with whom the 
Nom. is most frequent. The language of Luke i. 22 respecting Zach- 
arias: καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν διανεύων αὐτοῖς, in the classics could only mean he 
also or he himself. It is, however, the simple continuation of the 
narrative. And should any one wish to assume an antithesis because 
other persons were previously spoken of, the antithesis is only such a 
one as the Greek language ordinarily conveyed by 6 δέ; otherwise we 
should be compelled to maintain tat there is such an antithesis every- 
where, in every narrative, provided only several persons are spoken 
of. Further in ii. 28, where it is said of Simeon καὶ αὐτὸς ἐδέξατο αὐτό 
ete., καὶ αὐτός might be omitted altogether. In xvi. 24, where it is 
said of the rich man καὶ αὐτὸς φωνήσας εἶπεν etc., either 6 δέ or sin ply 
καί might have been used; for just before, too, he was the subject, 


“4 


95 


10 


108 ᾿ THE USE OF THE PRONOUN αὐτός. [§ 127. 


and the mention of Lazarus involves no antithesis. Luke xix. 2 
Lehm. [Treg.] καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ καλούμενος Ζακχαῖος, καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἀρχιτελώ- 
νης, καὶ αὐτὸς ἣν πλούσιος, καὶ ἐζήτει etc., where otherwise we should 
have had either twice a simple apposition, or at most the participle ὧν 
with dpy. and πλούσ. The peculiarity of the language consists pre- 
cisely in its being thus dissected into many individual propositions, in 
which αὐτός is a simple unemphatic repetition of the antecedent subject. 

Compare, now, with such sentences, those in which αὐτός or καὶ 
αὐτός really is emphatic, as vi. 42 πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν " ᾿Αδελφέ, ἄφες 
ἐκβάλω ..., αὐτὸς τὴν δοκὸν οὐ βλέπων etc., v. 87 ῥήξει ὃ οἶνος τοὺς 
ἀσκοὺς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται ; vi. ὃ ὃ ἐποίησεν 
Δανεὶδ, ὅτε ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ per αὐτοῦ, χν. 14; xvii. 16; xix. 91: 
although in such passages even it does not seem to be always necessary 
to employ the pronoun, e.g. iii. 15; vi. 35. 

Further, if we look at the passages in which αὐτός stands for Christ 
(some thirty times, more or less, in Luke), we shall find that, in by 
far the greater number, the mode of expression or the connection of 
clauses is at variance with ordinary usage; as, iii. 16, 23; iv. 15; 
v. 1, 14, 16,17; vi. 8, 20; viii. 1, 22, 37,54; ix. 51; x. 38; xi. 17, 
28; xvil. 11; xxii. 41; xxiii. 9; xxiv. 25, 28, in all which cases 
either no pronoun would have been used, or otros or 6 dé. On the 
other hand, it is used with emphasis apparently only in iv. 30; x. 1; 
xviii. 39; xxiv. 89, in which passages it accords with Greek usage. 
The weakened force of αὐτός is clearly perceptible -in those passages 
where it is several times repeated; as, xxiv. 56 ταῦτα δὲ αὐτῶν λαλούν- 
των αὐτὸς ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, xxiv. 31 αὐτῶν δὲ διηνοί- 
χθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτόν " καὶ αὐτὸς ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ᾽. 
αὐτῶν. Cf. John ii. 24; Mark iii. 31 sq.; Acts xxiii. 9, ete. 

Similar observations may be applied to the other books, especially 
the historical, e.g. Matt. iii. 11; ν. 4; xiv. 2; xvi. 20, ete. In ref- 
erence also to a preceding or following Relative, αὐτός is used in the 
sense of he, the one, instead of οὗτος or ἐκεῖνος which alone is customary 
in such cases in Greek prose, (where αὐτός before a relative always 
has its proper meaning, self) ; as, Mark xiv. 44 ὃν ἂν φιλήσω, αὐτός 
ἐστιν, Matt. xii. 50 ὅστις ἂν ποιῇ τὸ θέλημα ..., αὐτός pov ἀδελφός ete. 
Matt. xxvi. 48, etc.; so, too, when a participle stands instead of the 
relative clause, according to ὃ 125, 3 p. 93, as Luke xxiv. 21 ἠλπί- 
ζομεν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὃ μέλλων λυτροῦσθαι etc. 


What has now been taught in reference to the Nom. Mase. 
αὐτός, must of course be applied consistently to all other forms 
of the Nominative, both Sing. and Plur. 


Thiersch (de Pentat. vers. Alex. p. 98) asserts that in the Sept. 
αὐτός is used for he, but for the Feminine the demonstrative αὕτη is 


§ 127.] THE USE OF THE PRONUUN αὐτός. Loy 


regularly employed. This seems to be the case also in the N. T.; at 
any rate, the numerous examples of αὐτός cannot be matched with a 
single indubitable instance of αὐτή, still less of αὐταί. Nevertheless, 
the state of the matter may have been different, since in the case of 
αὐτὴ and avrat it depended only on the accent to make the one form 
or the other; and in point of fact, the readings often fluctuate (Mark 
xii. 31; Luke ii. 2; vii. 12; Rom. vii. 10; xvi. 2). Further, if we 
look at the several passages where at present αὕτη stands, we find 
many which are quite like those with αὐτός given above; to take ex- 
amples again from Luke: ii. 86 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] (Αννα) airy... 
ζήσασα μετὰ ἀνδρὸς ..., καὶ αὕτη (Tdf. ['Treg.] αὐτὴ) χήρα ete., vii. 12 
Lehm. [Treg.] τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὕτη ἣν χήρα (Tdf. om. ἦν [in eds. 
2 and 7, not in ed. 87), viii. 42; 1 Cor. vii. 12, ete. But since in all 
these and similar passages the Vulgate has haec,' while αὐτός it always 
reproduces (and on account of all absence of doubt respecting the 
form cannot do otherwise) by ¢pse, and avry also where it is indubitably 
the Fem. of αὐτός by ipsa (e.g. Luke i. 36; Rom. viii. 21; xvi. 2; 
1 Cor. xi. 14; Rev. xviii. 6), recent editors in the above instances 
have for the most part acquiesced in the form αὕτη. 

Respecting the Neuter αὐτό, Thiersch (as above) likewise de- 
clares that in the Sept. it does not, after the manner of οὗτος, stand 
for it, but that τοῦτο is always used instead. Certainly where ἐξ (as 
the Subject) refers to purely abstract ideas, the form τοῦτο may 
alone have been in use; but that in the more concrete instances 
(which, however, from the nature of the case cannot occur frequently) 
the form αὐτό straightway makes its appearance again, is shown once 
more by a passage from Luke (xi. 14): ἦν ἐκβάλλων δαιμόνιον, καὶ 
αὐτὸ ἦν κωφόν. 

Of the Masc. Plur., again, a number of indubitable passages may 
be adduced, as for example the αὐτοί common in the Sermon on the 
Mount (Matt. v. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, cf. 8, 10), further Mark ii. 8 Taf. 
[eds. 2,7] (where Tdf. [7th ed.] remarks correctly, vox ista αὐτοί 
delenda videri poterat, non item addenda), Luke ii. 50; ix. 36; xiii. 4, 
etc. This use becomes more frequent in later authors, presumably 
through Roman influence. 


B. § 127, 2, iii.; H. §502b.; C. § 540d.; J. 8 666. 

Of the combination αὐτὸ τοῦτο id tpsum a considerable number of 
instances may be brought forward, all of them, too, from the Epistles, 
viz. Rom. ix. 17; xiii.6; 2 Cor. νυ. 5; vii. 11; Gal. ii. 10; Eph. vi. 
22; Phil. i. 6; Col. iv. 8; doubtful is 2 Pet. i.5; once also τοῦτο αὐτό 


1 Yet the versions do not always agree in this particular; see e.g. Tdf.’s note 
on Luke ii. 36. 


il 


9€ 


13 


110 THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN. [8 12] 


occurs, 2 Cor. ii. 8 ([cod. Sin. also], see the variants). The Mase. αὐτοὶ 
οὗτοι occurs in Acts xxiv. 15, 20. 

Remark. Respecting the quiescing αὐτός in relative clauses 
(ὃν ... αὐτόν) after the example of the Hebrew, see ὃ 143, 1 p. 280. 


Tue REFLEXIVE PRONOUN. 
Β. § 127, 8and N. 3; Η. § 670sq.; C. § 587 8q.; J. ὃ 653 sq. 


In the use of the reflexive pronoun the language of tlie ~ 


N. T. has departed essentially from Attic correctness. It re- 
tained, indeed, a knowledge of the difference between the 
reflexives and the simple personal pronoun, for it never uses the 
reflexive where according to the rule it ought not to stand, e.g. 
John viii. 18 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, καὶ μαρτυρεῖ 
περὶ ἐμοῦ ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ, cf. v.31, 32; Rom. xvi. 2 αὐτὴ 
προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ, but it very fre- 
quently neglects it, and contents itself with the simple 
personal pronoun instead of the usual reflexives. 


To make this plain first in reference to pronouns of the First and 
Second Pers. (Sing. and Plur.): the simple personals take the place 
of the reflexives not only, a) in those cases which rest upon the analogy 
of ordinary Greek usage, that is to say in which the reference to the 
leading subject is rendered difficult by the intervention of subordinate 
clauses with a different subject, especially participial and infinitive 
clauses, e.g. Luke viii. 46 ἔγνων δύναμιν ἐξελθοῦσαν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, Acts xxii. 7 
ἤκουσα φωνῆς λεγούσης μοι, Xxvi. 138; Rom. vii. 23; Col. i. 29; Rey. 
x. 9 ἀπῆλθα, λέγων αὐτῷ δοῦναί μοι τὸ βιβλ., Matt. xiv. 28 (cf. also the 
subject-acc. with the Infin. expressed by pe, ce, etc., instead of ἐμαυτόν, 
etc., 8 141, 4 p. 274); or, b) in those which find a natural apology in 


‘the fact that other personal pronouns are coupled with them, as Matt. 


xvii. 27 λαβὼν δὸς αὐτοῖς ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ, Rom. i. 12 (ὑμῶν τε καὶ 
ἐμοῦ), Matt. xviii. 15; or, c) where the reference to some other term 
in the élause, even though it may be merely the article, was more con- 
venient than reference to the subject, as in Gal. i. 17 ἀπῆλθον πρὸς 
τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, Phil. ii, 23 ὡς ἂν ἀφίδω τὰ περὶ eve, —hence 
uniformly cov, μου, instead of σεαυτοῦ, etc., when the personal pronouns 
are used in place.of the possessives (see 19 below, p. 115); but 
also, ἃ) where the reflexive force of the pronoun goes back directly to 
the subject, -—yet particularly, only where the oblique case is preceded 
by a preposition, as βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ, μὴ σαλπίσῃς ἔμπροσθέν σου, 
παράλαβε μετὰ σοῦ, ἄρατε ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, etc. (Matt. v. 29, 80, xviii. 8, 9; 
vi. 2; xvili. 16; xi. 29, ete.) ; but the regular construction also occurs 


especially in John: ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, περὶ σεαυτοῦ μαρτυρεῖς, dye 


Ε127.] THE REYLEXIVE PRONC UN. 111 


μετὰ σεαυτοῦ, etc. But where the case is governed immediately by 
the verb, the reflexive forms in the Singular are constantly 
used, as βάλε, σῶσον, δεῖξον σεαυτόν, ἔπεχε σεαυτῷ, dyidlw ἐμαυτόν, ἔκρινα 
ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο;---- even ἔδοξα ἐμαυτῷ mihi videbar (Acts xxvi.9), although 
among the Greeks themselves the expressions δοκῶ μοι and μοι δοκῶ 
were common enough (see Steph. sub voce) ; in the Plural, on the 
other hand, the forms of the reflexive of the 3d Pers. ἑαυτοῖς, ἑαυτούς, 
etc. (respecting which see 15 below, p. 113) are almost always used 
in this case, and such instances as Matt. vi. 19, 20 (μὴ θησαυρίζετε 
ὑμῖν θησαυρούς), Eph. iv. 22 (see ὃ 141, 4 p. 274) are extremely rare. 

As respects the reflexive pronoun of the Third Person, 
it is to be noticed first of all, that according to the more recent 
collations it exists only in the fuller form ἑαυτοῦ, -ἧς, etc. (not 
αὑτοῦ, etc.). It has, accordingly, been assumed that in all 
cases where the forms αὐτου, avtw, avtov, etc. (not eavTov) 
appear, they must be marked with the smooth breathing, and 
consequently the reflexive is not used. This procedure was 
occasioned by observing the usage of the Sept., and has been 
confirmed, 1) by observing that of the 2d Pers., also, only the 
fuller form σεαυτοῦ, etc., has been preserved ; and, 2) that the 
reflexive forms of the 1st and 2d Pers. began to be used with 
considerably less frequency (see the preceding section); 3) 
by the usage of ordinary prose, in which (B. ὃ 127, N. 3) a 
marked vacillation began likewise to show itself in the em- 
ployment of the forms αὐτοῦ and αὑτοῦ, etc.; 4) by the 
difference in position commonly observed in connection with 
the two forms (avrov and eavtov) in a possessive relation (see 
on this point 20 below, p. 116); 5) by noticing that before 
the forms αὐτου, etc., when decidedly reflexive in sense, the 
prepositions ἐπί, κατά, etc., are never aspirated after elision, see 
Tdf. praef. ad Vet. Test. p. xxxiii [ed. 3]; ad N. T. xxvi. [ed. 
2; lvilisq. ed. 7] ; Winer 152 (1438). 

If, now, we compare together the cases in which the forms αὐτοῦ, 
etc., and those in which ἑαυτοῦ, etc., are given, we shall find what was 
just now said in reference to the first two persons to be in the main 
substantiated in reference to the third also, inasmuch as αὐτοῦ, etc., 
are used almost exclusively in a possessive relation (therefore for suus), 
and in general in all the cases given above (13 p. 110) where im- 
mediate reflex reference to the verb is in any way obstructed. If, 
however, especial emphasis made the reflexive form necessary, — that 
is to say, 1) if in specifications of possession not merely the notion his 


7 


{ 


98 


112 THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN. [8 12} 


(swus), but his own (suum tpsius, etc.), was to be expressed; 2) in 
case ot the emphatic repetition of the subject after verba dicendi in 
the construction of Acc. with Infin. (see § 141, 4 p. 274); and 3) if 
the case of the reflexive was governed immediately by the verb 
(often also after a preposition), — the fuller forms ἑαυτοῦ, etc., (so far 
as we can be sure about the mss. in this matter) made their appearance. 

Examptes. 1) Of αὐτοῦ, etc.: ina possessive relation, Matt. x. $$ 
ὃ εὑρών, ὃ ἀπολέσας τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, Luke ii. 7 ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς, 
and so on times without number; . in immediate dependence on a 
participle, Mark x. 32 ἤρξατο λέγειν τὰ μέλλοντα αὐτῷ συμβαίνειν, Acts 
ix. 4 ἤκουσεν φωνὴν λέγουσαν αὐτῷ, Heb. xii. 2, etc., or on an infinitive, 
Eph. i. 4 ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ... εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ; as 
subject of the Infin. after verba dicendi—a case which can occur but 
seldom, since according to rule in Greek the reflexive subject is 
separately expressed only for the sake of emphasis, and then ἑαυτόν 
must be used, Acts xxv. 21 rod Παύλου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τηρηθῆναι αὐτόν 
(where there is no emphasis, and yet the repetition of the subject was 
necessary, cf. § 141, 4 p. 274); after prepositions, John ix. 21 αὐτὸς 
περὶ αὑτοῦ λαλήσει, Acts xv. 22 ἐκλεξαμένους ἄνδρας ἐξ αὐτῶν, xvi. ὃ τοῦτον 
ἠθέλησεν σὺν αὐτῷ ἐξελθεῖν, Heb. xiii. 21; Mark ix. 16 τί συνζητεῖτε 
πρὸς αὐτούς (cf. i. 27);— with unaspirated consonants preceding, Matt. 
ili. 16 ἐρχόμενον ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, Luke vi. 3,4; Rev. ix. 11 (where Grsb. 
and Rec. give ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν, a correction ; [cod. Sin. ἑαυτῶν). 

2) Of ἑαυτοῦ, ete., for his own: Luke xiii. 34 ὄρνις τὰ ἑαυτῆς νοσσία, 
xi. 21 τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλήν, Matt. viii. 22 τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς, etc., cf. 20 
below, p.116; as subject after verba dicendi, see for examples ὃ 141, 
4p. 274; in immediate dependence on the leading predicate, with 
and without a preposition, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτόν (Matt. xvi. 24; Mark 
Vili. 34), ποιεῖν ἑαυτὸν βασιλέα (John xix. 12), ταπεινοῦν (Matt. xviii. 
4, etc.) ὑψοῦν (Matt. xxiii. 12, ete.) ἀπολέσαι (Luke ix. 25) εὐνουχίζειν 
(Matt. xix. 12) ἑαυτόν, ἀγαπᾷν τὸν πλησίον ὡς ἑαυτόν (Mark xii. 33), 
ἵνα dyopdowow ἑαυτοῖς (Matt. xiv. 15), βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς 
(Matt. xii. 25), ἀνέστη ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτόν (Mark iii. 26), etc.; to this last class 
there are but few exceptions.! 


1 These seem to be John ii. 24 ἐπίστευεν αὐτόν (Grsb. ἑαυτόν), xix. 17 βαστάζων 
αὐτῷ τὸν σταυρὸν ἐξῆλθεν (yet with both the other forms as variants ; [Tdf. ἐξ ἑαυτῷ], 
Grsb. τὸν σταυρὸν αὑτοῦ), Acts xiv. 17 Lehm. [Τα Treg. δὲ] οὐκ ἀμάρτυρον αὐτὸν 
ἀφῆκεν (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] ἑαυτόν), Rev. viii.6 Lchm. [T.Tr.s] ἡτοίμασαν abrods(Tdf. 
[eds. 2,7] ἑαυτούς, cf. xix. 7), xviii. 7 ἐδόξασεν αὐτήν (Grsb. ἑαυτήν). Since in this 
single class of cases the reflexive is used almost without exception with the first 
and second Persons also (13 p. 111), consistency seems to require that in thes¢ 
passages too, the reflexive, i.e. the aspirated form, be retained, unless we choose to 


restore the fuller form ἑαυτόν, etc., which is that presented, as a rule, by MBs. 
(Matt. αν. 30 does not belong here.) 


§ 127.] THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN. 113 


Β. $127, N.5; H. § 672; C. $589; J. § 654, 2b. 

It is now universally acknowledged, that in authors of every 
age, prose writers as well as poets, the reflexive of the 3d 
Person often takes the place of the reflexive of the 1st or 2d 
Person. In the N. T. this occurs especially with the Plural 
reflexives. The following seems to be the account of the 
matter: Since the pronoun αὐτός as a reflexive had lost its 
proper sense of se/f and all emphasis, ἐμαυτόν, σεαυτόν, etc., 
only signifying me, thee, etc. (like the English mysel/, thyself), 
it became necessary in the Sing., if the precise idea my etc. 
self was to be expressed, to write the words separately ἐμὲ, 
σὲ αὐτόν or αὐτὸν σέ, οἴο. This was not the case in the Plural, 
where the two senses ws (reflex.) and ourselves, etc., could 
not be distinguished so well as in the Singular ; on the contrary, 
the separation of the two pronouns would naturally suggest to 
the mind the meaning us etc. ourselves. Accordingly the 
usage gradually grew up, after the unquestionable precedent 
of the earlier writers (see, for instance, in prose, Thue. 1, 82 
τὰ αὑτῶν ἐκποριζώμεθα, Demosth. Phil. p. 52 εἴπερ μὴ ἑαυτῶν 
ἀπεγνώκατε, de Cor. p. 252,14; 282, 2; Chers. Ρ. 95,5; Plat. 
Phaed. p. 78 δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἀνερέσθαι ἑαυτούς). in case the reflexive 
of the 1st or 2d Pers. Plur. was to mean simply wus, you, without 
emphasis, to employ the form of the reflexive of the 3d Pers. 
Plur. consisting likewise of a single word, especially as by 
doing so no ambiguity could arise in any way. In the N. T. 
this usage has already become so thoroughly established that 
the disjoined forms (ἡμᾶς αὐτούς, etc.) are no longer used as 
mere reflexives, but when they occur have manifestly the force 
of us ourselves, etc. 

Instances of the Plural are very numercus and completely established 
by the mss. ; that is to say, 

Of the 2d Pers., Matt. iii. 9 μὴ δόξητε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, xvi. 8; XxXiii. 
81 μαρτυρεῖτε ἑαυτοῖς, xxv. 9 ἀγοράσατε ἑαυταῖς, xxvi. 11 ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυ- 
τῶν, Mark ix. 50; xiii. 9 βλέπετε ὑμεῖς ἑαυτούς, xiv. 7; Luke xii. 1, 33, 
57; xvi. 9 etc.; John νυ. 42; vi. 53 etc.; Acts v. 35; xill. 46 etc.; 
Rom. vi. 11, 13, 16 etc.; 1 Cor. vi. 7,19 ete. On the other hand, 
Acts xx. 80 ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ἀναστήσονται ἄνδρες (not reflexive) ; 1 Cor. 
vii. 35 πρὸς τὸ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν σύμφορον for your own profit; xi. 13 ἐν 
ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς κρίνατε judge by yourselves. 

Of the 1st Pers., Acts xxiii. 14 ἀνεθεματίσαμεν ἑαυτούς, Rom. viii. 23 
αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν, xv. 1 ὀφείλομεν ... μὴ ἑαυτοῖς ἀρέσκειν, 

15 


15 


99 


114 THE PRONOUNS τὶς, τίς, ὅστις. [§ 127 


1 Cor. xi. 31; 2 Cor. i. 9 (twice), iii. 1, 5, ete. On the other hand, 
2 Thess. i. 4 ὥστε ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐνκαυχᾶσθαι so that we ourselves 
boast. 

Remark. Of the Singular, it is true, hardly an unquestionable 
and satisfactory instance can be adduced from the N. T. In Gal. y. 
14 Tdf. [ed. 2] reads again with the Rec. ἀγαπήσεις ... ds ἑαυτόν, but 
by far the greater number of the ancient Mss. [δὲ also] and authorities 
give σεαυτόν (Lchm. Grsb. [Tdf.eds.7,8,Treg.]). In John xviii. 34, 
again, the most important ss. ([x] B C L) have ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ λέγεις 
(Lchm. [Treg.]), instead of ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ (Grsb. Tdf.). On the other 
hand, examples are common in the apocr. writings, e.g. Protev. 9, 1; 
Thom. 7, 2; Nicod. 3,2; Ep. Ignat. ad Trall. 3, etc. It is noticeable 
that in the classics, also, when the Sing. forms, ἑαυτοῦ etc., appear to be 
so used, there is almost always considerable variation in the readings, 
but not in the case of the Plural; see e.g. the variants on Xen. Mem. 
1, 4,9 (where almost all the oldest and more important Mss. give 
σεαυτοῦ); 2,1, 7.30; 2, 6,85; Anab. 6, 6,15; 7, 5,5; Cyr. 1, 6, 35. 
44; 5,1,20; Plat. Phaed. p. 91 C.; Protag. p. 312 A.; Amat. p.136D.; 


100 Alcib. 11. p. 148 C. ete. Since it is often the inferior and later mss. 


16 


which offer the 3d Pers., we may assume thus much at least as certain: 
that the usage was in later times pretty generally (in the Plural almost 
exclusively) prevalent, and that it must have been very familiar to 
the coypists; hence Apollon. Synt. 3, 2 (p. 195 B) expressly instructs 
us ov γάρ φαμεν ἑαυτὸν ὕβρισα ἢ ἑαυτὸν ὕβρισας, ἑαυτοὺς δὲ bBpi- 
σαμεν. Consequently, the common assumption (see e.g. Kiihner on 
Mem. 1, 4,9; Meyer on Gal. 5, 14) that the copyists out of ignorance 
changed the 3d Person into the 1st or 2d, may be given up as erroneous, 
if not in all, at least in many, passages of ancient authors, and certainly 
in the two from the N. T. given above. See besides, Bhdy. Synt. 
Ρ. 272, and the copious references on the subject in Matth. p. 1088; 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I p. 272. 


THE Pronovuns rls, tis, ὅστις. 
B. § 127, 4; H. § 688; C. $548; D. § 412; J. 8 659. 
The Indef. Pron. ris, τὸ in the pregnant sense of a man of 
importance, something great, or merely of the emphatic 


something in opposition to nothing (see Herm. ad Vig. nott. 112, 
113), is not unknown in the N.T. 


E.g. Acts v. 86 Θευδᾶς λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν (viii. 9 in full: εἶναι 
τινα ἑαυτὸν μέγαν) ; Gal. vi. 3 εἰ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὧν (just as in 


Plat. Apol. p. 41 E.), ii. 6; vi. 15, ete. Cf. on this head ὃ 129, 5 p. 127 


§ 127.; PERIPHRASIS FOR THE POSSESSIVES. 115 


B. § i27,5; H. § 682; C. § 566; D. p. 382; J. § 872. 

Instances of the combination of two questions into one 17 
(indirect) interrogative clause, are rare. Such appear to be 
Mark xv. 24 βάλλοντες κλῆρον tis τί ἄρῃ, Luke xix. 15 ἵνα yvoi 
τίς τί διεπρωγματεύσατο. 

Remark. For the use of τίς, τί sometimes instead of the simple 
relative (or of the indirect interrogative clause instead of the relative 
clause), see ὃ 199, 58 p. 251. It likewise takes the place of πότερος 
(e.g. Matt. xxi. 31) in reference to two, like ὃ εἷς for ὃ ἕτερος ci. p. 30. 


B, § 127, N. 10; H. $681b.; C. $550; J. 8 816. 

The looser use of the relative pron. ὅστις, in so far as it refers to 18 
precisely-defined objects, is constantly gaining ground in the later 
language (see Steph. Paris ed. sub voce p. 2309) and also in the N. T., 
as numerous examples show: Luke ii. 4 eis πόλιν Δαυεὶδ, ἥτις καλεῖται 
Βηθλεέμ, Rom. xvi. 6, 12 ἀσπάσασθε Μαριὰμ, ἥτις πολλὰ ἐκοπίασεν εἰς 
ὑμᾶς, Luke xxiii. 18 τὸν Βαραββᾶν, ὅστις ἦν . .. βεβλημένος εἰς φυλακήν, 
Gal. iv. 26 ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ ... ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν. See besides, 
Matt. xxi. 88; Acts xvii.10; Rom. xi.4; Eph. 1. 23; 11|.18; 2 Tim. 
ii. 18; Rev. xii. 13, etc. That besides, and indeed in by far the 
majority of cases, ὅστις has its legitimate general force, it is not neces- 
sary to state. 


PERIPHRASIS FOR THE POSSESSIVES BY MEANS OF THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS, 
THE REFLEXIVES, AND ἴδιος. 
Β. § 127,7,1); H. 8 675; Ὁ. Ρ. 862 5ᾳ.; J. § 652, 8. 

The substitution of the genitives μου and cov for the pos- 19 
sessives of the 150 and 2d Pers. Sing. predominates in the New 
Testament as in the Old—(the adjectives ἐμός and σός are 101 
employed oftenest by John); and the ear had already become 
so accustomed to this mode of expressing mine and. thine,, that 
(according to 18 p. 110 above) it was everywhere! resorted to, 
even when classic Greek would have been obliged to employ 
the reflexive pronouns ἐμαυτοῦ and σαυτοῦ. Their position is 
uniformly according to the rule: that is, they either precede 
the article or follow the noun. 

Examples: ὁ ἀδελφός σου, μου τοὺς λόγους, σου τὴν κλίνην, μου ὑπὸ THY 
στέγην (Matt. viii. 8, according to ὃ 147, 31 p. 843) ; for reflexives : 
John viii. 49 τιμῶ τὸν πατέρα pov, Rom. i. 8 εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου, Matt. 

v. 24 ἄφες τὸ δῶρόν cov... διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ cov... καὶ πρόςφερε 
τὸ δῶρόν σου, Vii. 4, 5, ete. | 

1 The only contrary example, 1 Cor. x. 33 τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ σύμφορον, finds its explana- 


tion from § 132, 23 p. 169 as an objective, not possessive, genitive, and from the 
antithesis to τῶν πολλῶν. 


116 PERIPHRASIS FOR THE POSSESSIVES. [8 127 


B. 8 127, 7, 2); H. § 688; C. § 528 sq.; Ὁ. p. 858; J. ὃ 452. 
δὴ On distinguishing between the forms αὐτοῦ and ἑαυτοῦ, ete., 
in the place of the Poss. Pron. of the 3d Pers. see 14, p. 111 
above. As to their position, with substantives which have 
the article it is, in the main, the regular one, see e.g. Mark 
viii. 35 (Vat. Sin.) ; yet here and there (as in classic authors 
also, see B. § 127, N. 12) instances to the contrary are found: 


1) Of αὐτοῦ, -js, etc. Those instances have a foundation in usage 
where αὐτοῦ, etc., get an intermediate position because there are already 
other attributive limitations between the art. and the subst., as Matt. 
xxvii. 60 ἐν τῷ καινῷ αὐτοῦ μνημείῳ, Acts iii. 21 τῶν ἁγίων ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος 
αὐτοῦ προφητῶν, 1 Ῥοί. i. 3 κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος, ii. 9; v.10; 2 Pet. 
i. 9 τῶν πάλαι αὑτοῦ ἁμαρτιῶν. The intermediate position of αὐτοῦ is 
also justifiable when it has a reflexive sense, as Tit. ili. ὅ κατὰ τὸ 
αὐτοῦ ἔλεος, Heb. ii. 4 κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ θέλησιν, Rom. iii. 25. Yet 
instances where it is not reflexive are Rom. xi. 11 τῷ αὐτῶν παραπτώ- 
ματι, iii. 24; Jas. i. 18; 1 Thess. ii. 19; Heb. vii. 18 διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς 
ἀσθενές. In the Gospels there are no examples of the sort. 

2) Of the irregular position of ἑαυτοῦ, -ἧς, etc.: Matt. xviii. 31 τῷ 
κυρίῳ ἑαυτῶν, xxv. 1,4,7; Luke xii. 86; xv.5; xvi.5; xxii. 66; Gal. 
vi. 4, 8 (elsewhere, however, Paul always has the regular position: 
Eph. v. 28, etc.) ; Matt. xxi. 8 ἑαυτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια, Luke xxiii. 48 Lehm. 
ἑαυτῶν τὰ στήθη, Acts xxi. 11. 


ts B. § 127, 7, 8); H. § 675sq.; C. § 588; J. § 652. 

21. ‘To express the possessives of the 1st and 2d Persons 
Plural, again, the periphrasis with ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν is incom- 
parably more frequent than the adjective pronouns. Thus, for 
instance, owr in the Gospels is rendered only by ἡμῶν, your in 

102 Matt. and Luke in like manner only by ὑμῶν ; in Luke ὑμέτερος 
occurs only twice (vi. 20; xvi. 12), but not in connection with 
a subst. ; in John against two passages with ὑμέτερος there are 
some thirty with ὑμῶν, and so on. 


As respects position, ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν, just as is the case with 
αὐτοῦ, never in the historical books occupy the intermediate place, (but 
always stand either before the art. or after the subst.) ; in the other 
books this position is also comparatively rare, and indeed there is (as 
in 20 above) no deviation from Greek usage when in addition another 
adjective or adverbial limitation stands between the art. and subst. ; 
e.g. Rom. vi. 66 παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος, 2 Cor. iv. 16 6 ἔξω ἡμῶν 
ἄνθρωπος, v. i; Rom. vi. 12; 1 Pet.i.18; v.9 τῇ ἐν κόσμῳ ὑμῶν 
ἀδελφότητι. 2 Pet. i. 10 Lehm.; iii. 15; Jude 8 Lehm. [Tdf. Treg.}. 


§ 127.] THE USE OF ἴδιος. 117 


20; but only such examples depart from usage as Rom. avi. 19 ἡ 
ὑμῶν ὑπακοή, 1 Cor. ix. 12 τῆς ὑμῶν ἐξουσίας. Yet this intermediate 
position is peculiar only to the style of the Apostle Paul; see besides, 
2 Cor. i. 6; vii. 7 (three times); viii. 18, 14; xi. 8; xii. 19; xiii. 9; 
Phil. i. 19, 25; ii. 80; Col. i. 8; 1 Thess. iii. 7,— (all with ὑμῶν). 


Β. § 127, N. 12; D. p. 868; J. § 652, 2. 

The non-enclitic form of the 1st Person ἐμοῦ is never used in 
dependence on substantives except when it stands in connection 
with other genitives (in which case σοὺ also must retain the 
accent); as, Rom. i. 12 πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ, xvi. 18 τὴν μητέρα 
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμοῦ. Hence in Matt. xvi. 23 we are not to read σκάνδαλον 
εἶ ἐμοῦ (Lehm. [Tdf. Treg. x*]), but, according to good authorities, 
either μου (Tdf. [eds. 2, 77) or the Dative ἐμοί (cod. D). The accent 
is also retained of course when the pronoun is strengthened by αὐτοῦ, 
ns: Luke ii. 35 καὶ cod δὲ αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχήν, Rom. xvi. 2. 


B. § 127, N. 18; C. § 588; D. p. 858, 872; J. § 656, 4. 

The peculiar classic usage of strengthening the possessive 
adjective pron. by the Genitive of the substantive pron. 
αὐτοῦ, -av, etc. (Lat. suwm ipsius, etc.) to express the idea of 
own, no longer appears in the language of the N. T.) Asa 
substitute for it, the language in expressing this idea avails 
itself very commonly of the simple adjective ἔδεος ; which 
thus, when it has no special emphasis, frequently takes the 
place of the reflexive used possessively, particularly of the 3d 
Person.” , 


Accordingly ἴδιος stands in the reflexive-possessive sense of the 
First Pers. (my etc. own) 1 Cor. iv. 12, of the Second Pers. 
(thy etc. own) Luke vi. 41; Eph. v. 22; 1 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Pet. iii. 17, 
of the Third Pers. (for ἑαυτοῦ, etc.) very frequently in all parts of 
the N. T. (never in the Rev.) ; see among other passages Matt. xxii. 
5; Luke vi. 44; Johni. 42; Acts i.25; Rom. x.3; 1 Cor. iii. 8 etc.; 
1 Tim. iii. 4,5; Heb. iv. 10; Jas. i. 14: 1 Pet. iii. 1,5; Jude 6, ete. 


1 As analogous may be noted Paul’s τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου, at the end of several 
Epistles. 

2 That ἴδιος is in fact used quite in the sense and stead of ἑαυτοῦ etc. is manifest 
not only from the variants and parallel passages, as in Luke ii. 8 els τὴν ἑαυτοῦ 
πόλιν Lehm. [Tdf. Treg.], τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν Tdf. [eds. 2,7] (cf. vi. 41; Mark xv. 20, 
etc.), but also from the fact that the expressions are exchanged one for the other 
without any sensible difference, as in 1 Cor. vii. 2; Eph. v. 22, 28, and in 2 Pet. 
ii. 22 the proverb (Prov. xxvi. 11 κύων... ἐπὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἔμετον) is reproduced 
κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιαν ἐξέραμα. The Latin versions also frequently translate 
it simply by suus. 


103 


118 PLEONASTIC USE OF POSSESSIVES. [8 127, 


It is noticeable that in the following passages the Genitive αὐτῶν is 
added to this ἔδιος to strengthen it, just as in Greek it is added to the 
Possessives: Acts i. 19 τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν, Tit. i. 12 τὶς ἴδιος αὐτῶν 
προφήτης, 2 Pet.) iii. 3,16 κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμίας, πρὸς τὴν 
ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν. 

% Hence ἴδιος with the article used substantively (οἱ ἴδιοι, τὰ ἴδια) 
takes the place of the constructions current in ordinary classic usage : 
ot ἑαυτοῦ, τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, etc.; as, John i. 11; viii. 44, etc.; Acts xxi. 6; 
1 Thess. iv. 11; 1 Tim. v. 8, and with the addition of αὐτοῦ (cf. 23 
above); Acts xxiv. 23. It stands likewise for τὰ ἡμῶν. αὐτῶν: Luke 
XVili. 28 ἡμεῖς ἀφέντες τὰ ἴδια. 

2% ἠ Ἴδιος appears to be used more in its strict sense (proprius) in such 
passages as John vii. 18 ζητεῖ τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἰδίαν, x. 3, 4; Acts iii. 12; 
xxviii. 830; Gal. vi. 9; Rom. viii. 32; Heb. ix. 12, ete. Thus Caper- 
naum as the city in which Jesus dwelt and taught (Matt. iv. 13; 
Mark ii. 1, etc.) is called in reference to him ἡ ἰδία πόλις Matt. ix. 1. 


B. $127, 8; H. $527 d.; Ὁ. $5800; D. Ὁ. 853. 

δ It is to be noticed as a prominent peculiarity of N. T. 
usage, that where classic Greek, even in later (post-Christian) 
authors, manifestly avoids ddding possessive limitations, as 
superfluous, indeed offensive, they are nevertheless subjoined 
in by far the majority of cases. This usage was oc- 
casioned, without doubt, bythe language of the Septuagint ; 
which, in consequence of the literal translation of the Hebrew 
original, contains manifold constructions of the sort, as a com- 
parison of the Sept. with the Hebrew text shows on almost 
every page. 

The following examples may serve to illustrate this very frequent 
(pleonastic) use: Matt. xxiii. 5 πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν πρὸς 
τὸ θεαθῆναι, xiii. 44 ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτοῦ ὑπάγει καὶ πωλεῖ πάντα, John 
ii. 23 θεωροῦντες αὐτοῦ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει, Matt. ii. 15 (quotn.) ἐκάλεσα 
τὸν υἱόν μου, ix. 18 ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου, Luke iv. 11 (quotn.); x. 27 
(quotn.) ; xi. 46 ἑνὶ τῶν δακτύλων ὑμῶν οὐ προσψαύετε τοῖς φορτίοις, Matt. 
xvi. 8 ; ΧΥΠ], 8, etc. If in anything syntactical, it is in precisely 
this uncommonly frequent employment of the possessives pov, cov, 
αὐτοῦ, etc. in which, throughout the Greek of the Bible, the Hebrew 

104 tinge becomes apparent. Yet instances are not wanting of genuine 
Greek constructions, as e.g. Matt. xxvii. 24 λαβὼν ὕδωρ ἀπενίψατο τὰς 
χεῖρας, Mark viii. 1 Tdf. [Treg.] προςκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαθητάς (cf. 

1 With the author of this Ep. the predilection for the expression with ἴδιος 


seems, to judge from the little that is left us, te have completely suppressed the 
other mode of expression by means of ἑαυτοῦ, et¢ 


§ 127.| THE USE OF PRONOUNS WITH THE ARTICLE. 119 


Matt. xv. 32), etc.; and in this particular undoubtedly much may be 
set down to the account of scribes accustomed to this form of speech, 
when we consider that the cod. Vat. especially is devoid of an innu- 
merable multitude of these superfluous adjuncts. Cf. with this idiom 
the excessive use of the pron. αὐτός 9 above, p. 107, and the Hebraism 
ob ... αὐτοῦ in § 148, 1 p. 280. 

Finally, as respects the article, the language of the N. T. 
is not so consistent. in the case of possessive limitations con- 
sisting of the Gen. of the subst. pron., as in those that are 
adjectival (§ 124, 6 p. 87); inasmuch as it omits the article 
not only, 1) where the omission is allowable according to the 
rules given § 124, 8 p. 88, but also, though far less frequently, 
2) where according to general rules the.art..is demanded. 


_ Examples of 1), as well when the possessive limitation is a sub- 
stantive pron. as when it is an actual subst., are comprised among 
those already given in § 124, 8 p. 88; 

Of 2) Matt. xix. 28 ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ, xxv. 31; Luke i. 72 
μνησθῆναι διαθήκης ἁγίας αὐτοῦ, ii. 32 δόξαν λαοῦ σου Ἰσραήλ, Jas. i. 26 
Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.] μὴ χαλιναγωγῶν γλῶσσαν αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ ἀπατῶν 
καρδίαν αὐτοῦ (Lchm. ἑαυτοῦ), v. 20 ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ. (Passages 
like Luke xiii. 19 εἰς κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ, xv. 29 οὐδέποτε ἐντολήν σου παρῆλθον, 
1 Cor. iv. 14 ὡς τέκνα pov can at all events, according to the princi- 
ples laid down B. § 124, N. 4, be so interpreted that the substantives 
dispense with the article because not limited.) This omission takes 
place sometimes also where the possessive limitation is a substan- 
tive, as 1 Cor. x. 21 οὐ δύνασθε τραπέζης κυρίου μετέχειν καὶ τραπέζης 
δαιμονίων, 1 Tim. v. 10 εἰ ἁγίων πόδας ἔνιψεν, 1 Pet. iii. 12 ὀφθαλμοὶ 
κυρίου... καὶ ὦτα αὐτοῦ ... πρόςωπον δὲ κυρίου, Rev. ii. 1, 8, 18 Lchm. 

In a manner quite analogous the article sometimes falls away also, 
where according to ordinary Greek usage it is apparently necessary, 
in the possessive limitation expressed by ἴδιος (23 p. 117); e.g. 2 Pet. 
ii. 16 ἔλεγξιν ἔσχεν ἰδίας παρανομίας, i. 8, 20; 1 Cor. vii. 7; Tit. ii. 9 
δούλους δεσπόταις ἰδίοις ὑποτάσσεσθαι. In other passages the omission 
of the article is according to rule, as in the adverbial limitations 
(§ 124, 8d) p. 89) κατὰ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν, καιρῷ ἰδίῳ, καιροῖς ἰδίοις, κατ᾽ 
ἰδίαν ; or in sentences like John vy. 18 πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεὸν 
(where it is a predicate). In 1 Cor. xv. 38 the ss. fluctuate between 
ἴδιον σῶμα (Lchm. [ Treg. Tdf. x*]) and τὸ ἴδ. σ. (Tdf. [eds. 2, 77). 

POSITION OF οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος, πᾶς, ETC., WITH THE ARTICLE. 
B. §127, 9; Η. §587sq.; C. § 524; D. § 398; J. ὃ 458sq.; S. pp. xviii. sq. 

The usage in this matter had become so established, that 

offences against it do not occur in the N. T. Hence we find 


δ] 


ἰδ 


- 


12) | THE USE OF PRONOUNS WITH THE ARTICLE. [8197 


105 invariably either αὕτη ἡ πόλις, ἀμφότερα τὰ πλοῖα, πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος, 


30 


31 


or ἡ γῆ ἐκείνη, τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα, etc. Though πᾶς does appear 
frequently without an article (πᾶσα σάρξ, πᾶν δένδρον, μετὰ 
πάσης προθυμίας, πάντες ἄνθρωποι, ᾿Αθηναῖοι δὲ πάντες, etc.), 
yet this is quite according to analogy, because the statements 
are general and unqualified, or they fall under the class of 
cases treated of in § 124, 8 p. 88. Whenever the number is 
presented as limited, the article is never missing ; hence πάντες 
οἱ μαθηταί, πάντας τοὺς προφήτας, ai θύραι πᾶσαι, etc. 

The insertion of πᾶς, too, between the article and substantive 
rests upon classic precedent: Acts xix. 7 ἦσαν δὲ οἱ πάντες ἄνδρες ὡσεὶ 
δώδεκα ie. the whole number of the men was twelve (cf. xxvii. 37), 
xx. 18 μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν τὸν πάντα χρόνον ἐγενόμην throughout the whole time 
(more emphatic than πάντα τὸν χρόνον), Gal. v. 14 6 πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ 
λόγῳ πεπλήρωται the law in its entire compass and contents, 1 Tim. i. 
16 τὴν ἅπασαν μακροθυμίαν the entire fulness of his longsuffering. 

Remark. Although ἕκαστος, which is commonly used substan- 
tively, always appears without the art. in the few passages in which 
it is conjoined to a subst. as an adjective, yet no exception from 
ordinary usage can be established on this fact, since all the passages 
may be brought under the same rules which applied above to πᾶς 
without the art.: Luke vi. 44 ἕκαστον δένδρον, John xix. 23 ἑκάστῳ 
στρατιώτῃ (the number of the soldiers has not been previously men- 
tioned), Heb. iii. 13 καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, Rev. xxii. 2 κατὰ μῆναν ἕκαστον... 
So we find in Thucyd. κατὰ τὸν ὁπλίτην ἕκαστον, καθ᾽ ἑκάστην τὴν ἡμέραν 
used interchangeably with καθ᾽ ἑκάστην χάρακα, κατὰ ἔτος ἕκαστον ; in 
Herod. ἐπ᾽ ἡμέρας ἑκάστης and τὸν δήμαρχον ἕκαστον, etc. 

The common phrase εἷς ἕκαστος is likewise found in the classics 
also: Thuc. 1.77; 2. 60, ete. Respecting ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος see p. 80. 


B. $127, N. 15; H. § 588; C. 8 ὅ24 ο.; D. p. 852; J. § 458, Obs. 1. 

Further, the article is regularly wanting, when the 
demonstrative takes the place of the predicate, or the sub- 
stantive following must be taken as a predicate and separated 
from the demonstrative. 


Of this rule there are many good examples in the N. T.: Rom. ix. 8 
ταῦτα τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ se. ἐστίν, Gal. iii. 7 οὗτοι viol εἰσιν ᾿Α βραάμ, iv. 24; 
1 Thess. iv. 3 τοῦτο γάρ (sc. ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας) ἐστιν θέλημα 
τοῦ θεοῦ, Luke i. 86; xxi. 22. As an objective clause: John iv. 54 
τοῦτο πάλιν δεύτερον σημεῖον ἐποίησεν this was the second sign which 
etc., ll. 11 ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων. With ἐκεῖνος: John 
viii. 44 ἐκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν, χ. 1 ; and in an objective clause, x. 35 


5127] PERIPHRASTIC FORMS OF THE NEGATIVES. 121 


= 


εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεούς. Here belongs also the much debated passage 
Luke ii. 2 Lchm. [ Treg. ] αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς 
Συρίας Κυρίνου [Tdf. x* ἐγένετο πρώτη] ; and therefore the addition 
of the article is by no means necessary (Winer, R.W.B. under 
Quirinius). 


PERIPHRASTIC Forms OF THE NEGATIVES. 106 


Instead of the negatives οὐδείς and μηδείς, weakened as they 32 
were by daily use, the N. T. language employs several more 
emphatic modes of expression, effected by resolving these neg- 
atives into their component parts, viz. 


1) The phrase, current among the Greeks also, οὐδὲ εἷς (B. § 70), 
as Matt. xxvii. 14 πρὸς οὐδὲ ἐν ῥῆμα, John i. 3 χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ 
ἕν ὃ γέγονεν, Acts iv. 32; Rom. iii. 10 οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς (still 
stronger vs. 12 οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός, after Ps. xiv. 1, 8). 

2) The simple separation of the two parts of οὐδείς (i.e. οὐ and εἷς, 
see B. 8 70, 1), but reversing their order, thus: εἷς (μα) ... οὐ; as, 
Matt. v. 18 ἰῶτα ἕν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ, x. 29 ἕν ἐξ αὐτῶν od 
πεσεῖται, Luke xi. 46; xii. 6, ete. 

3) The expression, imitated from the Hebrew or borrowed from 
the Septuagint, od (μὴ) ... πᾶς, but always written separately, so 
that the negative comes immediately before the predicate (just as in 
the Heb. 55 ... 85 e.g. Exod. xx. 10; Judg. xiii. 4; 2Sam. xii. 3, etc.) : 
Matt. xxiv. 22 οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ, Luke i. 37; Acts x. 14 οὐδέ- 
ποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινόν, 1 Cor. i. 29 ὅπως μὴ καυχήσηται πᾶσα σάρξ, Gal. 
ii. 16; Rey. xxi. 27. The Greeks would have preferred to express 
themselves by means of a double negation, or to use τὶ instead of πᾶν, 
— both which expressions also are common enough in the N. T. e.g. 
Matt. xxii. 16; Mark xiv. 60, etc.; viii. 26; Rom. ix.11; Rev. vii. 1 
μήτε ἐπί τι (Rec. [Τα δὲ] πᾶν) δένδρον. 

Similar in meaning, but probably of a different origin, is the opposite 
arrangement of the two words, πᾶς ... od (μή). in the following 
passages: Rey. xviii. 22 πᾶς τεχνίτης od μὴ εὑρεθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι, xxii. 3; 
2 Pet. i. 20; Eph. v. 5 πᾶς πόρνος ... οὐκ ἔχει κληρονομίαν, iv. 29 πᾶς 
λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω. This mode of 
expression had its origin, we may suppose, in the circumstance that 
when the writer began his sentence an affirmative predicate was 
hovering before his mind, as is plain in passages where an affirmative 
predicate follows the negative one immediately :! John iii. 16 ἵνα πᾶς 


1 Whether the celebrated passage 1 Cor. xv. 51 Tdf. [Treg. Alf.] — (on the 
origin of Lchm.’s reading see Riickert in loc. This greatly interpolated passage 
fan, as we may suppose, originally thus: πάντες . . . κοιμηθησόμεθα [utr] οὔ, πάντες 
δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα; cf. cod. Sin.) — is to be explained in the same way is doubtful, 

16 


122 NEUTER ADJECTIVES. [8 128. 


ὃ πιστεύων μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (cf. vs. 15), vi. 89 ἵνα πᾶν 
.ος μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ ἀναστήσω αὐτό etc. (on the order see 
107 8 151, 4 p. 379), which affirmat. ve predicate, too, in other passages must 
be supplied from the negative, as in John xii. 46 ; 1 John ii. 21; iii. 15. 
Somewhat anomalous, but referable to the above rule, are Rev. vii. 
16; ix. 4 (οὐδὲ πᾶν καῦμα, etc.), where the preceding predicates (οὐ 
μὴ πέσῃ; μὴ ἀδικήσουσιν) must for substance be supplied after the neg- 
ative οὐδὲ ; on ix. 4 cf. besides ὃ 148, 8 p. 352. ; 
The difference in meaning provided that the negative comes im- 
mediately before πᾶς and belongs to it is made plain by such passages 
as Matt. vii. 21; xix. 11; John xiii. 10, 11,18; Acts x. 41,. ete. 
Compare besides the adverbial expressions οὐ πάντως and πάντως ov in 
§ 151, 19 p. 389. 


B. § 127, 10; H. § 688 e.; Ὁ. p. 468; J. § 454, 3. 

33 That ἄλλος with the article is exchanged, without difference 
of meaning, with ὁ ἕτερος (the other of two), we have already 
seen in noticing the expressions substituted for ὁ wév ... ὁ δέ, 
§ 126, 8 above, p. 102. Other instances, also, not connected 
with this combination are pretty frequent, as Matt. v. 39 ὅστις 
σε ῥαπίζει eis τὴν δεξιὰν σιωγόνα σου, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν 
ἄλλην, xii. 18; John xix. 32; xx. 3, 4, 8, ete. 


NevTER ADJECTIVES. 
Β. $128, 8; H. $496; C. δ 507; Ὁ. p. 888; J. § 486, 2. 

ἢ In accordance with the familiar metonymy by virtue of 
which abstracts are used in a concrete sense (thus in the N.T. 
frequently e.g. ἡ περιτομή, ἡ ἀκροβυστία Rom. ii. 26; iii. 30; 
Gal. ii. 7 etc., αἰχμαλωσία Eph. iv. 8), the neuter Singular of 
adjectives ‘ond participles also is employed to set oe a 
plurality of concrete objects in their union. 


Examples: John xvii. 2 ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ, δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν 
αἰώνιον (respecting the arrangement see § 151, 4 p. 379), vi. 37; 
1 John v. 4; Heb. vii. 7 τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖται (where 
ὑπό with the Gen. makes reference to an author, ὃ 147 p. 340). 


and has been disputed particularly by Meyer among recent writers, — whom 
Winer 555 (517) agrees with. Yet the earlier interpretation (Olsh., deWette, 
Riickert, etc.) ought not to be held to be “a make-shift opposed by the context 
and without warrant or example” in view of the similarity of the above two pas- 
sages from John, even notwithstanding the repetition of πάντες. At least the 
difficulty does not lie in the grammatical construction (respecting the omission of 
μέν cf. the two passages from John and ὁ 149, 11 p. 364, and especially ὁ 148, 14 
p- 355), but in the obscure contents of the (repeated) πάντες. In interpreting the 
passage, 1 Thess. iv 15-17 is to be specially compared. 


§ 123.] PREDICATE WITH THE ARTICLE. 123 


Similar is 2 Thess. ii. 6 καὶ viv τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, for which subsequently 
vs. 7 the Mase. ὃ κατέχων is used; see deWette’s excursus on the pas- 
sage p. 132. For examples of the Neuter Plural in a concrete 
personal sense see 1 Cor. i. 27, 28; Gal. iii. 22. The (good classic) 
use of the Neuter Participle instead of the simple Substantive 
(kindred in sense or in derivation) is found especially in Luke; as, 
τὸ εἰωθός or εἰθισμένον for ἔθος (iv. 16; ii. 27), τὸ γεννώμενον i. 35, ete. 
See Credner, Einl. p. 135. 
B, § 128, N. 4; H. §552a.; C. $509; Ὁ. p.888sq.; J. § 486, 2. 

That the Neuter Sing. and Plur. with the article is often used 
adverbially has already been remarked ὃ 125, 12 p. 96. The remark 
holds true also of the Neuter Sing. and Plur. without the art., e.g. 


λοιπόν henceforth, for the future, and (in the Epistles) as a conjunction | 


consequently, furthermore, ergo ceterum: Mark xiv. 41; Acts xxvii. 
20; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 2 Tim. iv. 8; μέσον in the midst, Phil. ii. 15 
(Grsb. ἐν μέσῳ) ; πολλά multum (i.e. both sepe and vehementer) Matt. 
ix. 14 [Treg.]; Mark v. 23, etc. (see Wahl, under πολύς). On the 
phrase εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ see ὃ 129, 11 p. 181. 

Remark. An isolated Hebraism is the use of the Fem. Sing. in 
a quotation from the O. T. for the. Neuter: Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii. 
11 (παρὰ κυρίου ἐγένετο αὕτη καὶ ἔστιν θαυμαστή etc.) — taken 
from Ps. exviii. 23 and originating in the literal translation of the 
Fem. (as Neut.) m&t. See Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 661 [Gr. § 105, 3]. 
On πρώτη πάντων ἐντολή see ὃ 150, 6 p. 374. 


THE NOUN IN CONSTRUCTION. 
SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. 
Β. 8129, 2; H. $585; C. $584; Ὁ. § 394; J. δ 460. 

The Predicate, if it is a noun, naturally dispenses with the 
article so far forth as it is to be affirmed of the subject merely 
as an idea, i.e. when taken asa general and unlimited con- 
ception ; as, John iv. 24 πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, Rom. x.4 τέλος γὰρ 
νόμου Χριστός, Acts xix. 26 οὐκ εἰσὶν θεοὶ οἱ διὰ χειρῶν ywo- 
pevot Where, therefore, οἱ γινόμενοι sc. θεοί is the subject. Yet 
the article is admissible as soon as the predicative idea is 
limited, i.e. restricted to something conceived as within definite 
limits, or assumed as known, or as previously mentioned or 
designated. In the N. T. its use is frequent, especially in 
John (Winer adduces in §17 [5th ed.; of. 7th ed. § 18, p. 114 
(109)] alone more thar eighty instances of the sort, and the 
number could be easily increased) ; and on comparing them, 
the admissibility, indeed necessity, of the article is everywhere 


(8 


124 PREDICATE WITH THE ARTICLE. [8 129. 


perceptible, for they can be conveniently distributed into the 
three following classes : 


a) The predicate, a substantive, contains an idea (generally known 
or previously mentioned) definitely limited. To make the distinc- 
tion clear, compare the above passage from John (iv. 24) with 
2 Cor. iii. 17 6 δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν, viz. the Spirit of which 
we are speaking, which emanated from Christ and is operative in his 
church; or Rom. vii. 7 6 νόμος ἁμαρτία (ἐστίν ;) with 1 John iii. 4 
πᾶς ὃ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, Kal ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἣ 
ἀνομία; or compare Matt. xii. 23 μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ υἱὸς Δαυείδ ; ts 
this the son of David! and xiv. 88 ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ thou art truly 
God’s Son (cf. John i. 34, 50; 1 Johniv.15); or Acts ii. 7 οὐχ οὗτοί 
εἰσιν of λαλοῦντες Γαλιλαῖοι and Mark vi. 3 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν 6 τέκτων, 6 
vids τῆς Μαρίας, etc. Hence everywhere σὺ εἷ- ἐγώ εἰμι- οὗτός ἐστιν- ὃ 

109 Χριστός, ὃ προφήτης, 1.6. spoken of in the Scriptures, etc., e.g. Matt. 
xvi. 16; Mark viii. 29; Luke iv. 41 etc.; John i. 20, 21, 25 etc.; Acts 
ix. 22; 1 John v. 1 etc. See further John i. 1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος .. . 
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὃ λόγος (where, accordingly, the predicate has the art. 
although the subject dispenses with it; yet the passage is also differently 
interpreted, see the Comm.), i. 4, 8; viii. 12; ix. 19, 20; x. 7, 14; 
xi. 25; xiv. 6; xv. 1,5; xviii. 33; Matt. v.13; Mark xv. 2; Acts 
iii. 25; 1 Cor. x. 4; 2 Cor. iii. 2; Phil. iii. 8, 19 (where 6 θεός is the 
Pred.), Rev. xviii. 23; xix. 10 etc. In many of these passages the 
predicate is already more closely defined by an adjective (as in John 
xv. 1) or a Genitive (hence John viii. 44 ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ 
αὐτοῦ), in others it allows itself to be more closely limited by a relative 
or equivalent participial clause (δ 125, 3 p. 92 sq.) which is understood, 
and indeed such a clause very often actually follows; e.g. Matt. iii. 17; 
Mark ix. 7; 2 Pet. i. 17; 1 John ii. 22, ete. 

b) The predicate is an adjective or participle rendered substantive 
by means of the art., i.e. raised to a definitely limited, objective, idea ; 
as, John vi. 69 σὺ εἶ 6 ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ not a holy one of God but the holy 
one of God, “the one whom God has consecrated (x. 36) and on. 
whom he has set the seal (vi. 27) of sanctity,” see deWette in loc. 
Accordingly in 1 Cor. xii. 6 θεὸς ἐνεργῶν ἐστιν τὰ πάντα ἐν ἡμῖν would 
only declare simply God works in us; but ὁ ἐνεργῶν signifies it is God 
(alone) who (in point of fact) works, ete. — substantially, indeed, the 
same idea, but differing in conception, in energy of expression. See 
besides Matt. x. 20; John i. 33; v. 39; vi. 33, 63; viii. 18; ix.8; 
xiv. 21; Acts ix. 21; 1 John v. 6,7; Rev. i. 17; ii. 23; iii. 17. 

Remark. That with substantive predicates also the passage 
often gains in force by the addition of the article, may be seen from 
1 Cor. xi. 8 θέλω ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὺς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὃ Χριστός 


§ 129.] AGREEMENT OF SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. 125 


ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὃ ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὃ θεός, where 
the omission of the art. would not, to be sure, have altered the mean- 
ing, but would have weakened its expression ; Eph. ii. 14 αὐτός ἐστιν 
ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν he ἐξ our (only, true) peace ; without the art. the prop- 
osition would assert of Christ merely in a naked way that he is our 
peace; John xv. 1 ἐγώ εἶμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή, etc. Cf. § 124, 7 
p. 87 sq. 

6) The proposition is one in which subject and predicate stand in 
such a relation to each other that one expression is meant to be merely 
explained, elucidated, amplified by the other, as 1 Cor. xv. 56 ποῦ σου, 
θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον; τὸ δὲ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ἁμαρτία, etc. So reg- 
ularly in explaining the parables: e.g. Matt. xiii. 37 sq. ὃ σπείρων τὸ 
καλὸν σπέρμα ἐστὶν ὃ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὃ δὲ ἀγρός ἐστιν ὃ κόσμος etc., 
vi. 22 ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν 6 ὀφθαλμός. Cf. the example from 
1 John iii. 4 in a) above, and deWette in loc. This holds true in 
particular of many passages in which a pronoun, as ἐγώ, οὗτος, 
ἐκεῖνος, ὅς, etc., takes the place of the subject; as, Matt. xxvi. 26 τοῦτό 
ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου, 28 τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά pov, and in the exposition 
of the parables: Matt. xiii. 19, 20, 22 etc. See, besides, John i. 19; 
v. 89; vi. 14, 50, 51, 58; Acts iv. 11; vii. 32; viii. 10; xxi. 28, 38; 
Eph. i. 23; iv. 15 (cf. v. 23); Rev. iv. 5; v. 6,8; xx. 14, etc. It is 
further to be noticed, that in these instances also the predicative sub- 
stantive is, as a rule, more closely defined by an adjective, a genitive, 
a retative or participial clause. 


AGREEMENT OF SUBJECT AND PREDICATE IN NUMBER AND GENDER. 110 
B. $129, 8; H. $515; C. $569; Ὁ. p. 899; J. ὃ 884 sq. 

Although the mss. vary very much, it is nevertheless certain 2 
that the N. T. writers proceed rather arbitrarily in reference 
to the use of the Singular and Plural where the Subject is 
a Neuter Plural. For not only is the Singular verb 
found where animate and even human beings are the subject, 
e.g. Luke xiii. 19; Mark iv. 4 (πετεινά, on the other hand in 
Matt. vi. 26 the Plural), Luke iv. 41 (δαιμόνια), 1 John iv. 1 
(avevpata), iii. 10 (τέκνα, moreover in a contrast of two), 
Rom. ix. 8; 1 Cor. vii. 14,1 or where the plurality is made 
prominent, as Matt. xii. 45; Luke viii. 2 (ἑπτὰ πνεύματα, 
δαιμόνια), Matt. xviii. 12 (ἑκατὸν mpdBata), Luke viii. 80 
(δαιμόνια πολλάλ ;— but also the Plural where inanimate 
objects are the subject, as Matt. vi. 28 (xpiva), John vi. 13 


1 Hence in 1 Tim. ii. 15 it is quite inconsiderate to supply τέκνα, from the 
preceding τεκνογονίας, for μείνωσιν. 


126 AGREEMENT OF SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. [5129 


(κλάσματα). xix. 81 (σκέλη) ; and abstracts, as Luke xxiv. 11 
(ῥήματαν, 1 Tim. v. 25 (épya); and even the Neut. Plur. of 
a pronoun (very rarely), John xvii. 7 (codd. Vat. Sin.), Rev. 
i. 19; 1 Cor. x. 11 Lchm.;! and, indeed, both numbers 
stand side by side in the same connection: John x. 27 (ta 
πρόβατα ... ἀκούει... καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσίν wor), Rev. i. 19; 
(1 Cor. x.11). In general, however, it is not to be overlooked, 
that the majority of instances of the use of the Plural occur 
with animate objects; the majority of instances of the Singular, 
with inanimate, abstract, and almost always with pronominal, 
expressions. 


Remark. As an anomaly is to be noticed Rev. ix. 12 Tdf. [so 
Lehm. Treg, 8]: ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται ἔτι δύο οὐαί, for οὐαί is Feminine 
(ἡ οὐαί ἡ pia). The precedence of the predicate (cf. the following 
paragraph) may have led to the introduction of the Singular. 


B. § 129, 4and 5; H. 8.611; C. $570; Ὁ. p.400; J. § 392. 


3 Where there are several subjects united by copulative 
conjunctions, the Predicate usually stands in the Plural 
when it follows, and the first Pers. is preferred in such cases 
to the 2d and the 3d: Luke ii. 48 ὁ πατήρ σου κἀγὼ ἐζητοῦμέν 
σε, 1 Cor. ix. 6. On the other hand, when the Predicate pre- 
cedes, either a) the Plural is used, Mark x. 35; Luke viii. 

11119; Acts iv. 27 etc., or Ὁ) the Singular, the predicate being 
in form restricted to a single object; and this occurs, too, 
not only with abstract and impersonal objects, as in Matt. vy. 
18 ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ yh, 1 Tim. vi. 4, but even 
with Persons: John xii. 22 ἔρχεται “Avdpéas καὶ Φίλιππος 
καὶ λέγουσιν τῷ ᾿]ησοῦ ; cf. i. 35; ii. 2,12; xviii. 15; xx. 3; 
Matt. xii. 83; Luke vi. 8; xxii. 14; Mark iii. 33 Lchm. [Treg. 
Tdf.]; Acts xi. 14; xxvi. 30; Philem. 23. Sometimes the Pre- 
dicate stands between the subjects, and then it conforms to 
that which precedes: Luke viii. 22 αὐτὸς ἐνέβη eis πλοῖον καὶ 
vi μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, Matt. xxii. 40; John iv. 12; Rev. xxi. 22. 


1 In this passage the harshness of the Plural is essentially abated by the adop- 
tion (with Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]) of the reading τύποι (standing as it does between 
ταῦτα and the verb συνέβαινον) instead of τυπικῶς. The adoption of the reading 
τυπικῶς requires the restoration of the Singular [so Treg. Tdf. ed. 8] the more, 
inasmwth as it is precisely the same mss. [so δὲ] which exhibit both this word and 
the Sing. (as, on the contrary, others exhibit the Plural and τύποι), and the Sin- 
gular follows again immediately afterwards. 


§129.] AGREEMENT OF SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. 127 


Remark. Analogous is Acts v. 29 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Πέτρος καὶ of ἀπό- 
στολοι εἶπαν, where, notwithstanding the Plur. εἶπαν, the Participle is 
referred to Peter alone as the spokesman in the words that follow, 
and consequently stands in the Sing. More surprising and harsh, 
however, are Luke ii. 33 ἦν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες and 
Matt. xvii. 8 ὥφθη αὐτοῖς Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἡλίας συλλαλοῦντες μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
(Rec. ὥφθησαν), on account of the Participles which immediately follow 
in the Plural; cf. Mark iii. 31 ((Tdf.] x α Ὁ). With these instances 
may be compared the similar constructions in Greek authors, e.g. 
Herod. 5, 12; Thuc. 4, 37; App. B. Civ. 1, 22. 


With disjunctive conjunctions the Singular is used 
by far the most frequently, as well when the predicate precedes 
as when it follows; since the assertion, although it may hold 
good of the two (or more) members, always applies to the 
several objects separately, not to both simultaneously or in 
union: e.g. Gal. i. 8 ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος εὐαγγελίζηται ὑμῖν, 
1 Cor. vii. 15 οὐ δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφή, Matt. ν. 18; 
xii. 25; Mark iii. 833 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] ; Luke χῖν. ὃ ; Eph. ν. ὅ, 
etc. In Acts xxiil. 9 and similar passages nothing but the 
Sing. is to be thought of. 


A rare instance of the Plural is Jas. ii. 15 ἐὰν δὲ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ 
γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν καὶ λειπόμενοι THs τροφῆς, where the Sing. would have 
caused ambiguity, on account of the difference of sex. 


B. § 129, 8; H. $522; C. $602; Ὁ. p. 898; J. 8 881. 

Examples of the usage here spoken of (the Neuter Sing. § 
of the predicate adj. when the subject is to be conceived of as 
thing, χρῆμα or ti) are found, though rarely, in the N. T. also: 
Matt. vi. 84 ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς, 2 Cor. ii. 6 ἱκανὸν 
«νιν ἡ ἐπιτιμία αὕτη. 


Β. 8129, Ν. 8; H. § 688 ο.; C. ὃ δ07 6.; J. § 881, Obs. 8. 

Far more frequently are the Neuters οὐδέν, μηδέν used in ref- 
erence to Masc. and Fem. subjects, if they blend with the copula 
εἶναι into a single idea: nothing i.e. of no worth, in contrast with 
τὶ εἶναι (see § 127, 16 p. 114); as, 1 Cor. vii. 19 ἡ περιτομὴ οὐδέν ἐστιν 
καὶ ἡ ἀκροβυστία οὐδέν ἐστιν, xiii. 2; 2 Cor. xii. 11 οὐδέν εἰμι, John viii. 
54; Gal. vi. 3 εἰ yap δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὦν. (But Matt. xxiii. 16, 18 
belongs under § 143, 14 p. 288.) Analogous to this usage is 1 Cor 
xi. 5 (γυνὴ) ἕν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ, and that of 112 
πλεῖον, ἔλαττον when (quite as in the classics) treated almost like 
indeclinable words: Matt. vi. 25; Luke xii. 23 ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν 


we 


128 . AGREEMENT OF SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. [§ 125 


τῆς τροφῆς, ix. 18 οὐκ εἰσὶν ἡμῖν πλεῖον ἢ πέντε ἄρτοι, (on the other 
hand, the Plural is used Acts xxiii. 13,21; xxv. 6) ; with this compare 
1 Tim. v. 9 ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα. . 


B. $129, 9; Η. 8 618; J. 8.881, Obs. 1. 

Pronouns, when, at the beginning of a‘clause, they are not 
only subjects, but refer at the same time to the fol- 
lowing predicate, are in the ancient languages, as is well 
known, put in the same gender with the predicate. Of this 
usage there are a great many examples in the N. T. also: 
Mark iv. 15 οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν, Matt. xxii. 88 αὕτη 
ἐστὶν ἡ μεγάλη ἐντολή, Mark xii. 28; Luke ii. 2; Rom. xi. 15 
τίς ἡ πρόςλημψις, εἰ μή ete. Eph. i. 18; vi. 2; Phil. i. 28 ἥτις 
ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, 1 Cor. iii. 17 (ὁ ναός) οἵτινές 
ἐστε ὑμεῖς, etc. 


Yet passages are not wanting which appear to approximate to our 
(German) usage of employing the Neuter in such a case, as 1 Pet. 
ii. 19 τοῦτο yap χάρις ete., where, however, τοῦτο rather prepares the 
way for the following clause with εἰ as containing the proper subject 
for the predicate χάρις ; cf. vs. 20 where τοῦτο refers back to what 
precedes. Nevertheless, in both cases the Vulgate translates, in ac- 
cordance with ancient usage, hec est gratia. Here belong, in par- 
ticular, a number of passages where a preceding, and generally a 
foreign, word is interpreted, or even directly translated, 
by a relative clause beginning with the Neuter 6. If the word to be 
explained is itself a Neuter, as in Col. i. 24 σῶμα αὐτοῦ, 6 ἐστιν ἡ 
ἐκκλησία, the Neuter form of the relative was required by that;’ and 
if the predicate of the relative clause is a Neuter, as in Mark xv. 16 
τῆς αὐλῆς, 6 ἐστιν πραιτώριον, Eph. vi. 17 τὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος, 
ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα θεοῦ, such cases may be regarded as instances of the rule 
laid down § 143, 3 p. 281. But there are passages in which neither 
of these suppositions is the case and yet the Neuter 6 is used, — 
passages, therefore, in which (according to B. § 125, 8, 2) the word 
to be explained is to be taken merely as such, 1.6. as a term desti- 
tute of gender. We distinguish three cases: a) most frequently the 
word to be »xplained is a foreign word and precedes the relative 
clause, as Matt. xxvii. 33 τόπον λεγόμενον Τ᾽ολγοθᾶ, 6 ἐστιν κρανίου τόπος 
λεγόμενος (a harsh combination, for which Mark xv. 22 more 
classically 6 ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον etc.), Mark iii. 17 Boavnpyés, 
6 ἐστιν υἱοὶ βροντῆς, John i..42 (Meocias), 43 (Kndas), ix. 7 (Ξιλωάμ, 

1QOn τοῦ μυστηρίου, ὅ ἐστιν Χριστός which follows (i. 27 Lchm. [Treg.]) see 
§ 143, 3 p. 281, and on ii. 17 see c) below. 


ΓΑ ΠΡ oe 


8129] CONSTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN IN THE PREDICATE. . 129 


see No. 18 p. 21), Acts iv 36 (Βαρνάβας), Heb. vii. 2 (Sadjyu); Ὁ) the 
case is similar when the foreign word fills the place of the predicate 
in the relative clause, as Mark xii. 42 λεπτὰ δύο, 6 ἐστιν κοδράντης, 
John xix. 17 κρανίου τόπον, ὃ (Grsb. and Rec. ὅς) λέγεται  βραϊστὶ 
Γολγοθᾶ; 0) the term to be explained is acommon Greek word 
(Mase. or Fem.), as Col. iii. 14 ἀγάπη, 6 ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος 
(Grsb. Rec. ἥτις in opposition to the mss. [Sin. 6s]), Rev. xxi. 8 
λίμνη, 6 ἐστιν ὃ θάνατος ὃ δεύτερος. 

Remark. All that has been said does not apply, of course, to clauses 
in which the pronouns do not refer directly to the predicate, but, as 
substitutes for objects previously mentioned, simply constitute the 


᾿ subject respecting which something is predicated, — and consequently 


there can be no thought of a change of gender; as, Acts viii. 10 οὗτός 
(sc. Σίμων) ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ, Eph. iv. 15 εἰς αὐτὸν, ὅς ἐστιν 7 
κεφαλή, Χριστός, i. 23 etc.; see other examples 1, a) and c) above, p. 124. 


B. § 129, 10; H. $511; C. § 490sq.; J. § 391. 

When there are several subjects, if the predicate is in the 
Plural the Mase. is preferred to the Fem., as in Luke ii. 33 
(ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες), 48 (ὀδυνώμενοιν, Jas. ii. 
15 etc. The other case, in which, namely, the adjective etc. 
refers as respects gender in form to only one of the subjects, 
occurs especially with attributives: Luke x. 1 εἰς πᾶσαν 
πόλιν καὶ τόπον, 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. iii. 6 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf., 
Sin.] τὴν παρρησίαν καὶ τὸ καύχημα .. . βεβαίαν, ix. 9 δῶρά τε 
καὶ θυσίαι, μὴ δυνάμεναι ete. 


ConsTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN IN THE PREDICATE. 

B. § 129, 11; H. $523; C. $499; D. p. 898 5ᾳ.; J. ὃ 878. 
The construction known by this name, characteristic as it 
is more or less of all languages, establishes itself especially in 


1 Harsher than any of the above instances is the reading Eph. v. 5 Lchm. [T. Tr.] 


πλεονέκτης, ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, and not analogous to them, because no ἑρμηνεία 
of the word πλεονέκτης occurs here. Moreover, since the origin of this reading, 
which in its complete form only B [now & also] exhibits, may be satisfactorily 
traced (see Tdf.’s crit. note), the older reading ὅς has been restored by Tdf. [eds. 
2, 7] with reason. Incomparably better accredited is Col. ii. 10 8 ἐστιν ἣ κεφαλή, 
and preferred by Lchm., as being the more difficult reading, to the equally attested 
ὅς ἐστιν [δὲ also] ; but exegesis opposes the reference (in that case necessary) of 8 
to πλήρωμα, and the putting of the words καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι in a 
parenthesis. On the other hand, in Col. ii. 17 the well-attested reading ὅ ἐστιν, as 
the more difficult, may be well sustained against the other & ἐστιν [δὲ also], inas- 
much as all that has been previously mentioned, grouped together under the 
unifying term 4, is designated as σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων in contrast with the 
σῶμα Χριστοῦ, [yet Tdf. Treg. prefer 4}. 
17 


113 


130  CONSTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN IN THE PREDICATE. [§ 129. 


the unconstrained popular language, which is averse to gram- 
matical punctiliousness; hence examples of it begin with 

114 Homer, and come down to the latest Greek, the N. T. included. 
As the subject is rendered familiar enough by the general 
grammars, examples are subjoined at once; these cannot be 
omitted here, since (in connection with those catalogued in 
§§ 123, 7 p. 80; 127, 7 p. 105; 148, 4 p. 281) they constitute 
an essential ilariant ‘of the N. Τ. language. And in order not 
to distract the attention by too many classes of passages, those 
in which the construction appears in participial clauses, 
whether predicative or attributive, are included. 

a) The predicate stands in the Plural, instead of the Singular, 
with collectives: most frequently with the terms ὄχλος and πλῆθος, 
e.g. John vii. 49 6 ὄχλος οὗτος ... ἐπάρατοί εἰσιν, xii. 12; Matt. xxi. 8; 
Mark ix. 15; Luke vi. 19 Tdf. [Treg. x], ix. 12; xix. 87; xxiii.1; 
Acts v. 16; xxi. 36; Rev. vii. 9; also with στρατιά Luke ii. 18 
(πλῆθος στρατιᾶς ... αἰνούντων), with oixia (family) 1 Cor. xvi. 15; 
Rey. xix. 1, and the collective limitations τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τῶν 
πλοίων Rev. ix. 18; viii. 9. Both Sing. and Plur. united: John vi. 2 
ἠκολούθει ὄχλος ... ὅτι ἐθεώρουν, xii. 9, 18; Luke i. 21 ἦν ὁ λαὸς προσ- 
δοκῶν ... καὶ ἐθαύμαζον, Acts xv. 12, and in the Genitive Abs. (cf. τοῦ 
στόλου ... πλεόντων in Demosth. Mid. ὃ 45) Mark viii. 1 πολλοῦ ὄχλου 
ὄντος Kal μὴ ἐχόντων. . 

b) The predicate follows the natural gender of the subject. 
Of this the examples are most numerous in the Apocalypse, in ac- 
cordance with the style of the author (see § 123, 7 p. 80). Thus iv. 
1; ix. 18; xi. 15 φωνὴ ... λέγων, φωναὶ ... λέγοντες as the ‘author 
thought at once, instead of the voice, of the angel uttering it, vii. 4 
χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι (ὃ 123 p. 78), v.12 χιλιάδες ... λέγοντες (ef. 
§ 144, 13 a) p. 298), iv. 8 Tdf. [2, 7, 8, Treg.; cf. Sin.] ζῶα, ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν 
ἔχων ... λέγοντες (cf. θηρίον ὃ 123 p. 80), xix. 14 στρατεύματα ... ἐνδε- 
δυμένοι, xvii. 3 Lchm. [Tdf., Sin.] (see ὃ 123 p. 80). Examples from 
other authors are, Mark xiii. 14 (respecting which see p. 81 above), 
Luke x. 13 Τύρῳ καὶ Siw... πάλαι dv... καθήμενοι (Grsb. and Ree. 
-vat) μετενόησαν, Acts xxviii. 26 (λέγων) Tdf. [Treg. so cod. Sin.], 
Gal. i. 23 (see 14 below, p. 133), Eph. iv. 17, 18 τὰ ἔθνη ... ἐσκοτω- 
μένοι. (But in 1 Cor. xii. 2 ἀπαγόμενοι does not depend immediately 
upon ἔθνη, and in Mark ix. 20 ἰδών does not refer to τὸ πνεῦμα, see 
§ 144, 13 ec) p. 299.) 

In almost all the passages cited under a) and b) it will be found 
that the employment of the natural gender and number imparts to — 
the expression a much more unconstrained character than would have 
resulted from strict grammatical correctness. 


= en ee ey ee 


§ 129,] ADVERBS IN LIEU OF THE PREDICATE. 131 


B. 8129, N. 12; Η. §514b.; C. $501; Ὁ. p. 899; J. 8 478. 

Instances of the Plural with ἕκαστος and the like are Acts ii. 6 
ἤκουον εἷς ἕκαστος, xi. 29, etc. The first hand reading of cod. Vat. in 
Acts iv. 82 οὐδὲ εἷς ἔλεγον (Sin. and others ἔλεγεν) is probably not a 
clerical error. Similarly 1 Cor. iv. 6 iva μὴ εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε 
κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου. 


Β. § 129, Ν. 14; H. § 618 d.;.C. ὃ 499 Ὁ.; D. p. 899; J. 8 390d. 

The employment of the so-called Pluralis Majestaticus iseverywhere 10 
common in the Epistles, agreeably to the general character of their 
contents, as Rom. i. 5; 2 Cor. i. 8sqq.; Heb. xiii. 18, etc. Whether 
the 1st Pers. Plur. occurring here and there in the Gospels in the 
discourses of Jesus is to be understood in the same way, is disputed ; 
see the interpreters on Matt. iii. 15; John iii. 11. On the plural in 
such passages as Mark iv. 30 {τίνι ὁμοιώσωμεν etc.) see § 139, 4 p. 209. 


ADVERBS IN LIEU OF THE PREDICATE. 115 
B. $129, 18; C. $706; Ὁ. p. 454; J. ὃ 875, 8. 

The power of adverbs to be employed as predicative limita- 11 
tions is far greater in the Greek language than, for example, 
in the Latin, owing to the readiness with which adverbs in 
Greek, without further change of form, can be turned into 
adjectives and substantives (§ 125, 10 p. 95). 

In the N. T. the following adverbs among others are found so used: 

ἐγγύς, 6.5. ὃ καιρός μου, TO πάσχα, TO ῥῆμα ἐγγύς ἐστιν Matt. xxvi. 
18; Rom. x. 8 (a quotn.), ἐγγύτερον ΧΙ. 11; πλησίον, eg. 
Luke x. 29, 36 ris ἐστίν μου πλησίον who ts my neighbor? (without 
the Art. according to § 124, 6 p. 87); πόρρω, Luke xiv. 32 αὐτοῦ 
πόρρω ὄντος; οὕτως, Matt. i.18 ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν, xxiv. 27, 37; xix. 
10 εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία (ἐγ the case is so), Rom. iv. 18 (a quotn.) 
οὕτως ἔσται TO σπέρμα σου (viz. as the stars of heaven), 1 Pet. ii. 15, 
etc. In this way is to be explained also the phrase τὸ εἶναι ica θεῷ 
Phil. ii. 6; on the adverbial use of ἔσα see Pape. 


B. § 129, 14; H. $667; C. $586; D. § 409; J. § 652. 
The addition of the personal pronouns ἐγώ, etc., to the verb 12 
takes place, as usual, wherever emphasis, and in particular 
sensible antithesis to other subjects, renders them necessary ; 
see, for example, 1 Cor. xv. 36 σὺ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ ζωοποιεῦται ete. 
(cf. 8 151,17 p. 388), but subsequently on repetition (vs. 37) 
merely ὃ σπείρεις, John vii. 84, 36; i. 19, 22, ete. 
Yet it is not to be overlooked that, — agreeably to what has been 
elsewhere brought forward respecting the immoderate use of the pro- 


116 


13 


14 


132 UNEXPRESSED SUBJECT. [§ 129 


nouns, and in particular relative to αὐτός as subject (see ὃ 127, 9 p. 107, 
26 p. 118, § 130, 2 p. 142), — the personal pronouns were frequently 
employed where no reason of importance is obvious, and a 
native Greek, at least, would certainly have contented himself simply 
with the form of the verb. We mistake the character of the N. T. 
language, and should misapprehend many passages, should we attempt 
in this matter to apply the classic standard and assume in all 
cases a rhetorical reason for the use of the pronoun, —a procedure 
which would do injustice to the homely and simple narrative style, 
especially of the Gospels. Compare on this point such passages as 
Matt. xiv. 16; x. 16; Mark vi. 37; xiv. 30; Rom. ii. 3; Gal. ii. 19; 
2 Cor. xi. 29, ete., or look up the numerous passages in which John 
avails himself of the personal pronoun as the subject of a finite verb. 
Accordingly we encounter here also, as we did above for instance in 
the case of the Possessives (αὐτοῦ etc. ὃ 127, 26 p. 118), a continual 
variation in the documents ; as some of the scribes, accustomed to the 
usage of the N. T., often added the pronouns, while others proceeded 
more according to classic principles and omitted the pronouns where 
they seemed to them superfluous. See, for example, simply in ref- 
erence to éy the various readings on Mark i. 2; Luke vii. 27; John 
v. 86; vi. 40; xii. 50; xvi. 17; xvii. 19; xviii. 37, ete. 


B. § 129, N. 15; H. § 506; C. § 394; D. p. 872; J. § 467, 8. 
An instance of apposition to the omitted pronoun implied in the 
verbal ending, is 1 Pet. v. 1 παρακαλῶ 6 συμπρεσβύτερος καὶ μάρτυς. 
This occurs most commonly with appositives in the form of a participle 


(taking the place of a relative clause), examples of which are given 
§ 144, 9c) p. 295. 


UNEXPRESSED SuBsEcT (Germ. man, ¢te.). 
B. $129, 15; J. 88 878. 898, 

Although the language of the N.T. is far more liberal in 
its use of pronouns than the ordinary literary language (see 
12 above), yet frequently, when there is an abrupt change 
of the subject in a minor clause (co-ordinate or subordinate), 
there is found, as in the classics, no corresponding pronoun, 
where the connection is evident; e.g. Mark i. 27 τοῖς πνεύμασιν 
ἐπιτάσσει, Kal ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ sc. TA πνεύματα, 1 Cor. Vii. 36 
οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, γαμείτωσαν (var. γαμείτω), where any more 
precise specification would have been heavy, in ‘act intolerable. 

Thus Luke, relying on the inevitable suggestions of the context, 
felt no hesitation in writing, xv. 15 ἐκολλήθη, ἑνὶ τῶν πολιτῶν, καὶ 
ἔπεμψεν (sc. 6 πολίτης) αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούν, Acts vi. 6 ods ἔστησαν 


§ 129.] UNEXPRESSED SUBJECT. 133 


ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀποστόλων, Kal ... ἐπέθηκαν (sc. of ἀπόστολοι) αὐτοῖς Tas 
χέρας. Luke iv. 39; xvii. 2 are still more simple and obvious; but 
Acts xvii. 2 κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς τῷ Παύλῳ εἰσῆλθεν sc. 6 Παῦλος is harsh, and 
hardly Greek, on account of the subject of the leading clause being 
supplied from a subordinate adjunct; and Acts vili. 7 πολλῶν τῶν 
ἐχόντων, πνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα, βοῶντα (sc. τὰ πνεύματα) φωνῇ μεγάλῃ 
ἐξήρχοντο, where the subject of the leading clause is identical with the 
object of the preceding participial clause (on the other reading, Lchm. 
[ Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin. ], see p. 380), is anacoluthic, or to be explained by 
the blending of two constructions (8 151, 10 p. 888). Examples from 
Paul’s Epistles, are, Gal. i. 23 ἤμην ἀγνοούμενος ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ..., 
μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἦσαν viz. the members of the Jewish churches (see 
b) under 8 p. 130 above); 1 Cor. vii. 17 εἰ μὴ, ἑκάστῳ ws ἐμέρισεν ὃ 
κύριος... , οὕτως περιπατείτω SC ἕκαστος (on the hyperbaton see ὃ 151, 
18 p. 389). See, besides, other similar examples ὃ 151, 10 p. 383." 


B. § 129, N. 16; J. §§ 378. 898. 117 
Sometimes the unexpressed subject of a clause is also not to 15 
be found in what precedes, although a definite subject was 
in the writer’s mind. In such cases, as a rule it (a) may 
either be gathered from the necessary connection, or (bd) is 
assumed to be sufficiently known to the readers, e.g. in quota- 
tions, which in fact are so often given by hint and in a frag- 
mentary form. 


Examples of (a) are Heb. xi. 12 διὸ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἐγεννήθησαν viz. 
the posterity of Abraham, Rom. ix. 11 μήπω γεννηθέντων μηδὲ πραξάν- 


11 John νυ. 16 ἐάν τις ἴδῃ ([so δὲ] ; Lohm. ¢id7) τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ..., 
αἰτήσει, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν etc. is a case-hard to decide. Winer (p. 427 5th ed. 
|cf. 7th ed. p. 523 (487)]) holds the interpretation of deWette and others (who, com- 
paring Jas. v. 14.sqq., would retain the same subject) to be harsh, which is by no 
means the case, since it has the grammatical sequence in its favor. It is opposed, 
however, by the use of the word διδόναι in the sense of acquire, procure, a circum- 
stance which early induced ancient expositors to assume a new subject, viz. God. 
And the parallel passage from James, notwithstanding its similarity, is not quite 
in point: in the first place, because there the predicate is σώσει, and secondly, 
because the causal relation between the two terms ἐπιστρέψαι and σῶσαι is different 
from that between αἰτῆσαι and δοῦναι. For the σῶσαι is included in the ἐπιστρέψαι 
and the ἐπιστρέψας is thereby at the same time a σώσας. The other explanation 
of the passage in John (that of Winer, Liicke, etc.) is manifestly the harsher, not 
so much on account of the rapid change of subject, as because the subject under- 
stood (6 θεός) is also previously to be supplied as the object of αἰτήσει. Neverthe- 
less, taking into consideration the usage given above, and in particular vs. 14 
(ἐάν τι αἰτώμεθα ... ἀκούει ἡμῶν), it seems to be the more probable; and the identity 
of the verbal forms (aitjoe ... δώσει Mey. [ie. Huther]) is no obstacle in the 
way of this construction; cf. Acts vi. 6 etc. above. 

2} the double Dative (αὐτῷ, ἁμαρτάνουσι see § 183, 18 p. 179. 


184 UNEXPRESSED SUBJECT. [8199. 


των τι viz. Esau and Jacob (vs. 18), Luke xvi. 4 ἵνα δέξωνταί με εἰς 
τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν viz. the debtors subsequently mentioned, John 
xii. 5 διὰ τί τὸ μύρον οὐκ ἐπράθη ... καὶ ἐδόθη πτωχοῖς viz. the proceeds, 
Rom. iv. 8, 22 ; Gal. iii. 6; Jas. ii. 23 (a quotation) ἐπίστευσεν ᾿Αβραὰμ 
τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην sc. τὸ πιστεύειν. Hence it 
harmonizes perfectly with the genius of the N. T. language to gupply 
in John vii. 51 as subject of ἀκούσῃ, not νόμος itself, but ‘he who is 
administering the law,’ and in Heb. x. 38 the general term man educed 
from δίκαιος (according to ὃ 151, 23 4) p. 392). This latter passage 
Bleek takes otherwise; cf. also Hab. ii. 4, where the order of the 
clauses is reversed. 

Examples of (b): John vi. 81 (a quotation) ἄρτον ἐκ rod οὐρανοῦ 
ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν, 2 Cor. ix. 9 (a quotation) ἐσκόρπισεν, ἔδωκεν τοῖς 
πένησιν * etc. 

. B. § 129, 16; H. 8 604 ο.; C. §571; D. § 881 b.; J. § 873, 2. 8. 

16 The case is different with apparently impersonal predicates, 
such as σαλπίζει, etc., with which it is usual to supply a verbal 
concrete, as σαλπυγκτής, etc.: 1 Cor. xv. 52 σαλπίσει yap, καὶ 
οἱ νεκροὶ ἀναστήσονται. 


Quite in accordance with this usage, the predicates ἃ γει or φησίν 
are often found in the N. T. in quotations, ὃ θεός or even merely ἡ 
γραφή being always to be supplied as subject; as, 1 Cor. vi. 16; 2 Cor. 
vi. 2; Gal. iii, 16; Eph. iv. 8; v.14; Heb. viii. 5; iv. 8 (εἴρηκεν). 
Those subjects are also expressed, as in Gal. iv. 80; 1 Tim. v. 18, or 
to be supplied from the preceding context, as in Heb. i. 5sqq. Sim- 
ilarly with εὐδόκησεν in Col. i. 19 ὃ θεός is to be supplied, which is 
expressed in 1 Cor. i. 21; Gal. i. 15 (doubtful). Respecting dpéd- 
μενον (Luke xxiv. 47) see ὃ 150, 7 p. 874, 


B. § 129, 17; H. § 504; C. $571(d); Ὁ. § 881 b.; J. § 878. 

17 Among the examples of this section respecting an unexpressed and 
118 indefinite subject (where in English we use ἐξ 6.5. προσημαΐίνει, ἔσεισε, 
ἐδήλωσε) may be reckoned Acts ii. 8 ὥφθησαν αὐτοῖς διαμεριζόμεναι 
γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρὸς, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐφ᾽ ἕνα ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, where the 
subject of ἐκάθισεν (πῦρ or γλῶσσα or πνεῦμα) has been designedly 
left obscure, on account of the mysterious and wonderful nature of the 
occurrence. More difficult grammatically is Luke xxiv. 21 τρίτην 
ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον, ἀφ᾽ ov ταῦτα ἐγένετο. The insertion of 

a definite personal subject viz. Ἰησοῦς (Meyer) cannot be justified by 
later usage; for in this, ἄγειν when connected with an object, as 
ἡμέραν, ἔτος etc., either has the special signification to celebrate, solem- 
nize, a day (Dion. Hal. de comp. verb. in.), or is an imitation of the 
Latin use of agere annum (1.4. natum esse, to be old, Galen); see 


§ 129.] UNEXPRESSED SUBJECT. 135 


Stephanus sub voce. Moreover, the assumption of a personal subject 
would only be allowable in case the following relative clause (ἀφ᾽ οὗ, 
etc.) also contained the same subject, or at least continued the nar- 
ration of occurrences relating to the same subject. Still more strange 
does it seem to supply Ἰσραήλ as subject from the preceding τὸν Ἰσραήλ 
(Bornem.). The majority of interpreters (deWette, etc.) have ac- 
cordingly taken the expression ἄγει τὴν ἡμέραν as impersonal (pretty 
nearly equivalent to 7 ἡμέρα ἄγεται), which not only gives the simplest 
and most natural meaning, but agrees best with the following relative 
clause, which is likewise without a personal subject. Although this 
supposition seems no less than the other to have the ordinary 
usage against it, so that we must regard the expression in this sense 
as a ἅπαξ ῥηθέν, yet it finds its analogue in the use (likewise of isolated 
occurrence) of ἀπέχει (Mark xiv. 41) ἐξ ts enough, more closely τέ 
ts completed, all is over. All these terms (ἄγει, ἀπέχει, ἐκάθισεν) are, 
however, to be carefully distinguished from the strict impersonals of 
the following section, since they stand out of all connection with verbal 
constructions. The meaning of dye in the passage before us is given 
unequivocally in the ancient versions: tertius dies est, agitur. Cf. 
further on this subject § 130, 4 p. 144. 


B. § 129, 18; H. § 494; C. §571e.; Ὁ. 8381 ο.; J. § 873, Obs. 1. 

To the ordinary impersonal verbs (δεῖ, πρέπει, etc.) a few must be {8 
added which are manifestly imitations of the Hebrew idiom or bor- 
rowed from the language of the Septuagint. Foremost among these 
are the common καὶ ἐγένετο or ἐγένετο δέ (F795), on the varied construc- 
tion of which see ὃ 141, 6 p. 276, and the phrase ἀνέβη ἐπὶ καρδίαν 
(ab dy τὸϑ see Gesenius) 1 Cor. ii. 9 (cf. Luke xxiv. 38), which is 
used quit: after the manner of impersonal verbs in Acts vii. 23 ἀνέβη 
ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ ἐπισκέψασθαι etc. 


B. § 129, 19; H. 8 04 ο.; ©. ὃ ὅΤ1 ο.; J. § 873, 7. 

The common modes of expressing the’ indefinite personal 19 
subject (English one, Germ. man) are by means of the 3d 
Pers. Plur. Act. or Mid. (even Luke xii. 20 is to be taken thus) 
and the 3d Pers. Sing. Pass., without any sensible difference ; 
hence both modes of expression are united in a single sentence 
in Luke xii. 48 πολὺ ζητηθήσεται παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ... καὶ περισ- 119 
σότερον αἰτήσουσιν αὐτόν. 

That the 38d Pers. Sing. of the Active was thus used, the in- 

1 See on this passage my detailed exposition in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1858 3d 


Heft, and cf. the similar use of περιέχει (equiv. to περιέχεται) in 1 Pet. ii. 6 
Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.]; see p. 144 note. 


180 OMISSION OF THE COPULA. [§ 129. 


definite ris being omitted (cf. B. § 129, N. 17), can reasonably be held 
only of 2 Cor. x. 10, in case we read φησίν with Rec., Grsb., Tdf 
[Treg., N] etc.: αἱ μὲν ἐπιστολαὶ, φησὶν, βαρεῖαι ete. (φασὶν certainly 
looks like a correction, and the translation of the Vulgate inquiunt 
like an interpretation, — suggested as it was by common usage). 
That with both these verbs, however, this usage, in parenthesis, is by 
no means unknown to Greek and Latin authors is seen e.g. in Demosth. 
ce. Aristocr. p. 150; Plut. Mor. p. 119 F.; Liv. 6. 40; Cic. de fin. 1. 2; 
4, 24, ete. 

Other passages, which are referred to this head, see under 15 a) 
Ρ. 198 sq. ; 

OMISSION OF THE CoPULA. 
Β. $129, 20.and N. 18; H. § 508a.; C. $572; D. ὃ 419; J. ὃ 876. 

The omission of the copula in the 3d Pers. Sing. of the 
Tudicative is very common in all parts of the N. T., in fact it 
may be said, particularly in the Pauline Hpistles, to be pre- 
ferred often throughout entire paragraphs. See a great mul- 
titude of such passages in Winer 584 (644). 


This omission takes place 1) in aphorisms, sententious propositions, 
aud proverbial phrases, as πιστὸς 6 θεός, οὐ πάντων 7) πίστις, ἕν σῶμα 
καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα, εἷς κύριος, πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς, τοῖς δὲ ἀπίστοις 
οὐδὲν καθαρόν; 2)) in questions, and exclamations in an interrogative 
form, as τί σοι ὄνομα ; τίς ἡ ὠφέλεια τῆς περιτομῆς ; ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις; 
τὸ σκότος πόσον (Matt. vi. 23), ὡς ἀνεξερεύνητα τὰ κρίματα αὐτοῦ, etc. 
8) in the customary formula ᾧ (οὗ) ὄνομα or ὄνομα αὐτῷ (αὐτοῦ), as 
Mark xiv. 82 χωρίον οὗ τὸ ὄνομα (Lehm. ᾧ ὄνομα) Τεθσημανεί, Luke 1, 
5 γυνή, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς ᾿λισάβετ, 26, 27; ii. 25; viii. 41; xxiv. 
13, 18, etc., also when unconnected or parenthetic, as John i. 6 dp- 
θρωπος, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης, iii. 1 ἄνθρωπος, Νικόδημος ὄνομα αὐτῷ ; 
4) especially with certain predicates (as indeed in Greek authors, see 
B. § 129, N. 18; Ὁ. 8 419 (b); J. § 870 ¢.),— for imstance, with the 
notions necessary, possible, impossible with an Infinitive following, or . 
to be supplied: Rom. xiii. 5 διὸ ἀνάγκη ὑποτάσσεσθαι, Heb. ix. 16, 23; 
vi. 4, 18 ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατον ψεύσασθαι θεόν, x. 4; xi. 6,19 Tdf. [cod. Sin. ; 
Treg. ], Gal. iv. 15 εἰ δυνατόν se. ἦν ; with hard: Acts xxvi. 14 σκληρόν 
go: πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν ; with righteous: 2 Thess. i. 6 εἴπερ δίκαιον 
ἀνταποδοῦναι, etc, 5) before the Relative when the demonstrative 
correlate is also dropped, as μακάριος ἀνὴρ, οὗ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος 
ἁμαρτίαν Rom. iv. 8; Jas. i. 12, etc.; on this cf. 8 151, 24 c) p. 395. 

That no such rules as these, however, are invariable is obvious. 
Respecting other phrases, in part established formulas, such as δῆλον 
ὅτι, iva τί, τί ὅτι, μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον, κεφάλαιον δὲ, etc., see the references 
in the Index, and ὃ 151, IV. Ellipsis, pp. 890 sqq. 


§ 129.] OMISSION OF THE COPULA. 137 


Of the other Persons, that most frequently omitted is the 
3d Pers. Plural εἰσ έν, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 9; Rom. iv. T, etc., 
particularly in the course of such statements and deductions 
as (according to the preceding paragraph) are generally de- 
livered with the omission of the copula; as, Rom. iv. 14; xi. 
16; 1 Cor. i. 26; xiii. 8; Heb. ii. 11, ete. 


In the first and second Persons the omission more rarely 
occurs, — as a rule, only when the person is expressly designated by 
means of the personal pronoun, as in John xiv. 11 πιστεύετε ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν 
τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὃ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί, Mark xii. 26 ἐγὼ 6 θεὸς "ABpadp, 2 Cor. x. 
7 καθὼς αὐτὸς Χριστοῦ, οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, John xvii. 23 ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ 
σὺ ἐν ἐμοί ; sometimes also where the person is readily suggested by 
the context, and in other respects no ambiguity arises, as 2 Cor. xi. 6 
εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης TO λόγῳ (se. εἰμί) ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῇ γνώσει, Rev. xv. 4 τίς οὐ 
μὴ φοβηθῇ, κύριε"... ὅτι μόνος ὅσιος SC. εἶ, 

Also when the construction requires the Subjunctive, or 
the Optative (in wishes), or the Imperative, we find the 
copula omitted ; yet here again but rarely. 


The Subjunctive: 2 Cor. viii. 13 od yap ἵνα ἄλλοις ἄνεσις, ὑμῖν 
δὲ θλῖψις sc. ἦ or γένηται which is subsequently used vs. 14; viii. 11 
ὅπως, καθάπερ ἡ προθυμία τοῦ θέλειν, οὕτως τὸ ἐπιτελέσαι ἐκ τοῦ ἔχειν. 
The Optative is omitted, particularly in certain very current 
phrases which have become standing formulas for expressing a wish, 
as ἵλεώς σοι sc. θεός Matt. xvi. 22, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν, ἡ χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, 6 θεὸς 
τῆς εἰρήνης μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν, etc. The Imperative, particularly 
in connection with preceding imperatives or demands, so that the form 
to be supplied is necessarily suggested, as Col. iv. 6 (περιπατεῖτε ...), 
ὃ λόγος ὑμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι, Heb. xiii. 4,5; Luke.i. 28; Rom. xii. 
9 8566. Respecting μηδὲν coi etc., see 23 below. 

Remark. Whether in the doxologies (Rom. xi. 36; xvi. 2 βα.; 
Gal. i. 5; Jude 25; Rev. i. 6, etc.) and in the opening formulas, as 
εὐλογητὸς ὃ θεὸς καὶ πατήρ 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 3; 1 Pet. i. 3 (cf. the 
song of praise in Matt. xxi. 9), we are to supply εἴη or ἔστω, or the 
Indicative ἐστίν, may be doubtful. Yet in view of Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. 
xi. 31 and particularly 1 Pet. iv. 11 (cf. the various readings on Matt. 
vi. 13) the Indicative ἐστίν decidedly deserves the preference. 

Strictly speaking, every case of the omission and insertion 
of a verbal idea ought to be treated in the chapter concerning 
Ellipsis. Since, however, a sharp discrimination in terms the 
supply of which is left solely to our own judgment is quite 


impossible, it seems to be expedient to treat in this place also 
18 


21 
{20 


22 


138 NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. [§ 129 8. 


of the case where the verb to be supplied is a general term, 
closely allied to the copula, as παρεῖναι, γενέσθαι, ἐλθεῖν, ar ἃ 
the like. In every instance it will be found that the supply 
of the absent verbal idea (expressed as it is by us in various 
ways) is facilitated by other parts of the sentence, in particular 

121 by a Dative (as the verb’s regimen) or a relation indicated 
by Prepositions. 


Here belongs primarily the Hebraistic formula (2 Chron. xxxv. 21; 
2 Sam. xvi. 10; xix. 22), which, however, is not unknown to the 
Greeks (Arr. Epict. 1,1, 16, etc.), that occurs in the Gospels: τί ἐμοὶ καὶ 
σοί, Matt. viii. 29; Mark i. 24; v. 7; Luke iv. 34; viii. 28; John ii. 4 
[A.V. what have I to do with thee|so Luther, (cf. Schweigh. on Herod. 
5. 33), — even when the connection requires an Imperative, as Matt. 
xxvii. 19 μηδὲν σοὶ καὶ τῷ δικαίῳ ἐκείνῳ: Also the phrase (quite classic) 
τί πρὸς σέ; τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς ; Lat. guid hoc ad me [ A.V. what is that to 
thee | Luther was gehts dich an (Herm. de ellip. p. 111), Matt. xxvii. 4; 
John xxi. 22, 23; similarly 1 Cor. v. 12 τί γάρ μοι τοὺς ἔξω κρίνειν ; 
Other phrases with the Dative are 1 Cor. vi. 13 τὰ βρώματα τῇ 
κοιλίᾳ καὶ ἡ κοιλία τοῖς βρώμασιν (exist for etc.), Rom. xi. 11 τῷ αὐτῶν 
παραπτώματι ἡ σωτηρία τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (has come), iv. 18 οὐ γὰρ διὰ νόμου 
ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ Αβραάμ. 

In connection with Prepositions: Heb. vi. 8 ἧς τὸ τέλος εἰς 
καῦσιν, 1 Cor. xv. 21 80 ἀνθρώπου θάνατος καὶ δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου ἀνάστασις 
νεκρῶν, Acts χ. 1ὅ φωνὴ πρὸς αὐτόν se. ἐγένετο (cf. vs. 13), 1 Cor. iv. 20 
οὐκ ἐν λόγῳ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν δυνάμει, 2 Cor. iv. 15 τὰ πάντα 
δι᾿ ὑμᾶς, Rom. iv. 9 ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομήν ete. (refer to) 
Matt. xxvii. 25 τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, Acts xviii. 6 ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν 
ὑμῶν se. γενέσθω or ἔλθοι (cf. Matt. xxiii. 8ὅ). And with an Adverb 
instead: Heb. x. 18 ὅπου ἄφεσις τούτων, οὐκέτι προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. 
Without any adjunct: 1 Cor. xv. 40 καὶ σώματα ἐπουράνια καὶ σώματα 
ἐπίγεια (i.e. there are, after the analogy of i. 26, etc.). 

The numerous passages in which the predicate is only to be 
supplied from the preceding context, are not noticed further here. 

With this whole section compare § 151, IV. pp. 390 sq. 


THE CASES. 
NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 
B. § 129 a.; Η. 88 541-43; C. § 401; J. §§ 476 sqq. 
1 The instances in which the Nominative stands instead of 
other Cases are chiefly occasioned by Anacoluthon (Noms. 
Absol.) or by loose construction, and will accordingly be 


treated of elsewhere. 
[1 Cf. p, 394.] 


§129 a.] NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 139 


Respecting the Nom. in appositional adjuncts see ὃ 123, 5 p. 78;— 
for the Acc. in instances of two Acc., ὃ 131,8 p. 151 ;— in participial 
clauses and instances of Nom. Absol. in general, ὃ 144, 4sqq. p. 291, 
13 p. 298; § 151, 4sqq. p. 379, and numerous examples in § 151, 
10 p. 383. 

The interjection ἐδού and (especially in John) even ἔδεε, like 
the Latin ecce and en, are followed by a Nominative. (The 
frequent occurrence of these interjections, both in narration 
and in argument, is probably derivable not merely from the 
Ο. T. alone, but from the popular language in general ; hence 
they appear more and more frequently in the later period,’ 
after Christ.) See numerous examples of ἐδού particularly in 
Matt., Luke, and the Apocalypse ; of ἴδε with a Nom. following, 
in Mark iii. 84 Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.], xvi. 6; John i. 29, 36, 
48; xix. 5 [ἰδού Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.], 14, 26, 27, in these 
passages, therefore, it is an interjection; on the other hand, 
when connected with the Acc. it is the ordinary Imperative of 
εἶδον, as in John xx. 27. 

Peculiar to the Apocalypse is the frequent combination εἶδον καὶ 
ἰδού likewise followed by a Nom., as in iv. 1; vi. 2, 5, etc. Yet the 
author sometimes allows himself the syntactic liberty of letting both 
eases (Nom. and Acc.) follow interchangeably, so that εἶδον again 
governs the Acc. although the Nom. has preceded; as, xiv. 14 εἶδον 
καὶ ἰδοὺ νεφέλη λευκή ... καὶ καθήμενον etc. Cf. iv. 1-4, and vii. 9 
which is spoken of in § 123, 5 p. 78 above. 

The Nominative stands quite absolutely and as an incom- 
plete parenthesis, where it is employed as a closer limita- 
tion of the predicate, — hence adverbially. 


It is so used in temporal limitations, in Luke ix. 28 ἐγένετο μετὰ 
τοὺς λόγους τούτους, ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ, καὶ παραλαβὼν etc., Matt. xv. 32 
στλαγχνίζομαι ...., ὅτι ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς προσμένουσιν; in modal lim- 
itations, Mark vi. 40 ἀνέπεσον πρασιαὶ πρασιαί (see p. 80) ; in vs. 89 
the construction of Acc. with Infin. requires us to take συμπόσια συμπό- 
aia as Accusative (cf. Luke ix. 14). With this use of the Nom. we 
may connect the (Johannean) parenthesis ὄνομα αὐτῷ spoken of ὃ 129, 
20, 3) p. 136, for which other writers employ either the Accusative 
adjunct τοὔνομα (ὃ 131, 12 p. 153), or most commonly the Dative 
ὀνόματι followed by that case of the proper name which the construc- 
tion requires, as Acts x. 1 ἀνήρ tis ὀνόματι Κορνήλιος, Matt. xxvii. 32 
etpov ἄνθρωπον ὀνόματι Σίμωνα, Acts xxvii. 1 ἑκατοντάρχῃ ὀνόματι 
Ἰουλίῳ, etc. 


140 NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. [$129 8. 


Respecting a second Nom. and the periphrasis with εἰς for the 
predicate-Nom. see in connection with § 131, 7 p. 150. 

‘ The remark (B. 8 129a. 1) that the Vocative in classic 
Greek commonly takes the interjection ὦ before it, does not 
hold in the N. T. On the contrary, not only is this sign of 
the Voc. in itself rare (used only sixteen times in all), but in 
most of these instances it is more than a mere sign of the 
Voc., inasmuch as the expression generally has an emphatic 
character, and so contains rather an exclamation than a 
simple address, 


For example, Matt. xvii. 17 (and parall. pass. Mark ix. 19; Luke 
ix. 41) ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος, Rom. xi. 33 ὦ βάθος πλούτου, Luke xxiv. 25; 
Gal. iii. 1 ὦ ἀνόητοι, Acts xiii. 10 ὦ πλήρης παντὸς δόλου. As a simple 
address in classic style it occurs, strictly speaking, only in the Acts 
(i. 1; xviii. 14; xxvii. 21), for even 1 Tim. vi. 20; Matt. xv. 28; 
Rom. ii. 1, 3; Jas. ii. 20 are not without a certain emphatic accent. 


5 Even when the Vocative has its own form, that of the Nom- 
inative is not unfrequently chosen (as in the classics). The 

123 Voc. of the 2d declension in e is still found most frequently, 
as κενὲ ἄνθρωπε, δοῦλε πονηρέ, υἱέ, κύριε (this last word always 
in this form if it has not the article, see below), even θεέ μου 
(ef. p.12). In the 3d declension, with the exception perhaps 
of those nouns which are often used in the Vocative, as πάτερ, 
βασιλεῦ, the Nominative is ordinarily used; in Luke xii. 20, 
also, and 1 Cor. xv. 86, most of the mss. [Sin. also] give ἄφρων 
instead of ἄφρον (Grsb.). 


The language of the N. T., like that of the Old, differs, however, 
essentially from the ordinary literary language in this: that the 
Vocative, besides taking the form of the Nom., very often takes the 
Article besides (6, oi, etc.);! cf. 6 p.141. Examples abound: 
Matt. xi. 26 vai, ὃ πατήρ, Mark v. 41 τὸ κοράσιον, ἔγειρε (although the 
preceding Aramaic word, ταλιθά, has no article), Luke xviii. 11, 13 6 
θεός, ἱλάσθητί μοι, John xx. 28 ὃ κύριός pov καὶ ὃ θεός μου, Rom. viii. 15 
ἀββᾶ, 6 πατήρ, Col. iii. 19 οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε, Jas. γ. 1 ἄγε νῦν, of 
πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε, Rev. xv. 3 δίκαιαι αἱ ὁδοί σου, ὃ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν. 
Also in quotations: Acts xiii. 41; Heb. i. 8, 9; x. 7, etc. 


1 That this use is not a mere Hebraism (cf. Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 654; Gr. § 107, 
Rem. 2) but rooted in the popular and colloquial language of the Greeks 
is expressly recognized by Bernhardy (Syntax p. 67), who cites in support of it 
many examples from Aristophanes and the Dialogues of Plato (Ar. Pac. 466 ° 
Plat. Symp. p. 218 B). 


§ 130.] THE OBLIQUE CASES IN GENERAL. 141 


B. 8129. 2; H. § 583; C. 8 401, 8; Ὁ. § 407; J. §§ 467. 476. 

A number of the passages in which the Nom. with the article seems 6 
to be used as Voc. may also be suitably taken as those in which 
adjuncts in apposition with the Voc., and even additions sub- 
joined with καί, take the form of the Nom. with the article, 
according to well-known laws of the Greek language. This is the 
case when particular persons are expressly designated: Luke xi. 39 
ὑμεῖς of Φαρισαῖοι, Rom. xiv. 4 σὺ τίς εἶ, ὃ κρίνων ; ii. 1 οἴο.; even if 
the preceding pronoun stands in a different case —an irregularity 
sufficiently explained by ὃ 123, 5 p. 78: Luke vi. 25 ovat ὑμῖν, οἱ 
ἐμπεπλησμένοι. In the case of adjuncts with καί: Acts xiii. 16 
ἄνδρες ᾿Ισραηλῖται καὶ οἱ φοβούμενοι etc., 26; Rev. xviii. 20 οὐρανὲ καὶ 
ot ἅγιοι. In particular we may refer to this head (in accordance 
with § 144, 9d) p. 295) participial adjuncts with the Impera- 
tive, which frequently occur in the N. T., as Matt. vii. 23 ἀποχωρεῖτε 
ot ἐργαζόμενοι, xxvii. 40; Mark xv. 29; Gal. iv. 21, 27 (a quotn.), 
Eph. v. 14; Jas. iv. 13; Rev. xii. 12; xvi. 5. 


Tue Osiique Cases In GENERAL. 
B. § 130, 1-4; C. 88 897 5ᾳ.; D. δ 148. 469; J. §§ 4715q. 

The settlement of the fundamental signification of the 1 
oblique cases forms a leading subject of general Greek gram- 
mar, and in particular of philosophic researches in syntax. 
But to institute such investigations in a special grammar like 
the present would not only be a departure from its aim, but 124 
would lead to but meagre or even incorrect results, since the 
language of the N. T. is already far removed from the primary 
and formative period of the Greek tongue. In this particular 
the process of development in the language must be regarded 
as completed, and the results attained in the general grammar 
as respects prose usage must accordingly be assumed as already 
established, and valid in the main also as respects the N. T. 
language. Since, however, with the decline of a nation a 
decline is wont as a rule to appear in its language also, we 
shall naturally find, in the writings of the N. T. as well as of 
the later writers generally, the syntactic combinations, and 
consequently the cases also, no longer employed with such 
precision and clearness of reference as prevailed in the earlier 
language. Hence we shall see many verbs construed with dif 
ferent cases from those used in the earlier language; and 
in particular, the more analytic and decomposed language of 


142 THE OBLIQUE CASES IN GENERAL [§ 130. 


later writers will often use prepositions with their cases, 
where the earlier language was satisfied with the simple cases. 
Instances of this sort, as matters belonging strictly to the 
province of N. T. grammar, we shall naturally have to treat 
with special prominence in the course of the following para- 
graphs; yet completeness of specification, as respects the cases 
and other constructions, in reference to every individual 
verb, it does not fall (as has been already intimated in the 
preface) within the limits of N. T. grammar to give. 


Β. $130,5 and N.1; H. § 505; J. §§ 898. 894. 

2 Such an essential departure, as has been alluded to, from 
the ordinary usage, we encounter at once in the application 
of the general principle that the ancient languages often neg- 
lect to designate the object (immediate or remote), where it 
is already sufficiently clear from the connection; and in par- 
ticular, are wont to express it but once if two verbs in any 
way connected have an object in common,— thereby 
avoiding a multitude of those pronouns that often so encum- 
ber modern languages. 


The language of the N. T., however, especially that of Luke and 
of the Ep. to the Heb., is not so far removed from the ordinary Greek 
as not to avail itself of this advantage; as may be seen from a 
considerable number of examples: Matt. xiii. 44 θησαυρῷ, ὃν εὑρὼν 
ἄνθρωπος ἔκρυψεν, xxvii. 65 ἀσφαλίσασθε sc. τὸν τάφον, Mark vi. 5 

125 ἀρρώστοις ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας ἐθεράπευσεν, Luke xiv. 4 ἐπιλαβόμενος 
ἰάσατο αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπέλυσεν, John x. 29 ὃ πατὴρ, ὃς δέδωκέν μοι SC. avira, 
Acts xiii. 3 ἐπιθέντες τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῖς ἀπέλυσαν, Eph. v. 11 μὴ συγκοι- 
νωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε, Heb. xi. 19 ἐκ 
νεκρῶν ἐγείρειν δυνατὸς ὃ θεός, 1 Cor. x. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 2, ete. 

But far more frequently than is the case even in still later Greek 
prose writers, we find (in accordance with the great preference for 
pronominal constructions often mentioned already) the object expressed 
by a pronoun, especially αὐτός ; so that here, too, the influence of 
Oriental usage is unmistakable, (cf. § 127, 9 sqq. p. 107 sq., 26 p. 118, 
§ 129, 12 p. 131 sq.) ; as, Mark x. 16 ἐναγκαλισάμενος αὐτά, τιθεὶς τὰς 
χεῖρας ἐπ᾽ αὐτὰ κατευλόγει αὐτά [Tdf. Treg. ἐναγκ. abr. κατευλόγει τιθεὶς 
τὰς χεῖρας ἐπ᾽ αὐτά after codd. Sin. Vat.; cf. § 127, 26 p. 119], Luke 
xvi. 2 φωνήσας αὐτὸν εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Matt. xviii. 2 προσκαλεσάμενος παιδίον 
ἔστησεν αὐτὸ ἐν μέσῳ. (But in John xv. 2 there are other reasons for 
the repetition by means of the pron. αὐτό, see ὃ 151, 4 p. 380.) Col. 
ii. 13 ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας ... συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς. 


§ 130.] REPETITION OF THE OBJECT. 143 


To the same origin is to be attributed the repetition of the same 
object in several clauses connected by conjunctions (cf. e.g. Josh. xxiii. 
2; xxiv. 20; Neh. ix. 34; 1 Macc. i. 6, etc.), as Luke xxiv. 50 ἐξήγαγεν 
αὐτοὺς ... καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς, cf. Matt. xxii. 37 (and its parallel 
Mark xii. 80), Rev. ix. 21, ete. ; also the un-Greek constructions 
in which to the Participle, with and without the art., the pronoun 
αὐτός (not οὗτος or ἐκεῖνος, on which see ὃ 144, 2} p. 306) is subjoined 
in the same case quite without emphasis,’ —as Matt. v. 40 τῷ 
θέλοντί σοι κριθῆναι ... ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον, iv. 16; Rev. vi. 4; 
Jas. iv. 17 εἰδότε καλὸν ποιεῖν καὶ μὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁμαρτία αὐτῷ éoriv, — yes, 
even when it has already been used with the Participle, is repeated 
again (cf. Col. ii. 13 above), as Matt. xxvi. 71 ἐξελθόντα αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν 
πυλῶνα, εἶδεν αὐτὸν ἄλλη, Vili. 23 ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ πλοῖον, ἠκολούθησαν 
αὐτῷ, and also frequently elsewhere in Tdf.’s text [eds. 2, 7] cf. Matt. 
viii. 1, 5, 28; xxi. 23; Mark ix. 28, ete. ;? and lastly, the practice 
(also anomalous), in constructions with the Gen. absol. and sometimes 
also with the Acc. and Infin., of expressing the subject by means of a 
pronoun, although it has already been given in the leading clause ; see 
on this in its place § 141, 4 p. 274, and § 145, 1sqq. p. 314 sq. 

Remark. In Matt. xxi. 41 κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολέσει αὑτούς the pronoun 
αὐτούς was formerly held to be a superfluous addition. Modern ex- 
egesis, however, has acknowledged αὐτούς to be the true object, so 
that κακούς is the word which ought to be held to be the rhetorical 
addition, made out of fondness for paronomasia, just as was often 
the case in Greek authors; as, Lucian, Pisc. κακοὺς κακῶς ἀποτρίψομεν. 
That the Latin versions and church fathers seem to take no notice of 
αὐτούς is solely owing to the impossibility of reproducing both words 
in their foreign idiom (as in our own also) ; and to take αὐτούς par- 
titively quite contradicts the sense of the passage. 


1Tsolated instances of this use adduced from Greek authors do not suffice to 
stamp it as an ordinary Greek constructior. Where we find something similar 
occasionally even in later Greek writers, other causes (generally rhetorical) as 
perspicuity, emphasis, the separation by parentheses of words belonging together, 
etc., have occasioned the repetition of the pronoun; whereas the frequent 
occurrence of this construction in the N. T., considering its small extent, warrants 
us in inferring a formal usage. 

2 We see from this that the assumption that all such cases as these last named 
are examples of the so-called Dative absolute (§ 145, 5 p. 316) is quite 
erroneous. On the contrary, the dative is everywhere governed by the verb of the 
leading clause. The abnormal addition of αὐτῷ etc. in the leading clause led to 
this false assumption, and probably also often in ancient times to the alteration 
(of the mss.) into the Gen. absol., which in fact is itself not according to rule. Cf. 
besides § 145, 2 p. 315. [Tdf. ed. 8 adopts the Gen. Abs. (with Treg. Lchm.) in 
all except the first. ] 


126 


144 OMISSION OF THE OBJECT. [$ 130. 


Β. § 180, N. 2; Η. 8 684; ©. §577; Ὁ. § 430; J. § 869. 

The remark that verbs originally transitive, by the frequent 
omission of an easily supplied object or of a reflexive pronoun, 
assume in the Active voice a neuter signification, is so well 
established and applies so commonly to all languages, that it 
seems to be quite sufficient simply to give a list here of a 
number of verbs so used in the N. T.; the usage is so wide- 
spread that we must desist from attempting to give a com- 
plete collection of the passages where it occurs, as well as 
from referring to analogous instances of the use of the same 
verbs by other writers. We find the following used thus 
intransitively : 


ἄγειν, particularly in the summons ἄγε, ἄγωμεν (on aye in Luke 
xxiv. 21 see ὃ 129, 17 p. 134),—together with the compounds 
ὑπάγειν (very frequent, especially in the Gospels, where it seems to 
take the place of the wanting ἰέναι, see ὃ 1387, 10 a) p. 204), παράγειν 
to pass by, pass on, ἐπανάγειν to return or merely to put off (Matt. 
xxi. 18; Luke v. 3, 4), διάγειν to pass, περιάγειν to go about (Acts 
xiii. 11), in this sense it then (according to the analogy of those Middle 
verbs that, having acquired a new, transitive, sense, take an object 
of their own, cf. B. § 135, 5) takes after it a new object, viz. of the 
place, as κώμας, ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν (Mark vi. 6 ete.), προάγειν to 
go before (Mark xi. 9), likewise with a new object when used in this 
sense — a use of this verb peculiar to the N. T., and particularly to 
Matt. and Mark, as προῆγεν αὐτούς went before them Matt. ii. 9 ete. 
(so προέρχεσθαι with the Acc. of a person Mark vi. 833; Luke xxii. 
47, perhaps after the Latin) ; 

ἔχειν, for example καλῶς, ἐσχάτως, (as in colloquial Latin bene habet); 
thus ἔχειν κατά twos means to have something against any one, be angry 
with him, Rev. ii. 4, 20; cf. Herme pastor, Mandatum 2 (Sin.),— 
together with the compounds ἀπέχειν to be at a distance (on ἀπέχει 
sufficit see § 129, 17 p. 135), ἐπέχειν to stay, both literally (Acts xix. 
22) and in a tropical sense, sc. νοῦν, to direct the mind to something 
(Acts iii. 5; 1 Tim. iv. 16), in which sense προσέχειν especially is 
current, ὑπερέχειν preesse, valere, and with a new object superare, 
prestare, ἐνέχειν to watch, be on the watch for any one, tnsidiari, 
περιέχει it runs, stands written 1 Pet. ii. 6 Tdf. [Treg.], ἐν γαστρὶ 
ἔχειν to be with child; 


1 Περιέχει must be taken intransitively in this passage whether we read with 
Rec. and others [cod. Sin. also’ ἐν (rH) γραφῇ, or with Lchm. ἡ γραφή (sc. οὕτως 
or τύνδε τὸν τρότον, cf. 2 Mace ix. 18; xi. 16; 1 Macc. xv. 2; Joseph. Antt. 12, 
4, 10, etc.). To which of these two readings we ought to give the preference it is 


§ 130.] OMISSION OF THE OBJECT. 145 


βάλλειν to storm against, rush upon, of the wind (Acts xxvii. 14), 127 
and the compounds ἐπιβάλλειν of the waves (Mark iv. 37), in the 
signification to fall to Luke xv. 12, προβάλλειν to sprout (Luke 
xxi. 30), συμβάλλειν in various senses (see the lexicons) ; 

κλίνειν to incline, together with the compound ἐκκλίνειν ; 

στρέφειν to turn (away) one’s self (Acts vii. 42) together with 
the compounds ἀναστρέφειν, ἐπιστρέφειν; 

ἀπορρίπτειν to throw one’s self off ; 

παραδοῦναι to offer, to present itself? (Mark iv. 29) ; 

ἐνισχύειν transitive and intransitive in Luke (see Wahl) ; 

ἀναλύειν to go away, depart, also to return i.e break up, rise 
from, a meal (Luke xii. 36) in order to go home (οἴκαδε μετὰ δεῖπνον 
ἀναλύειν Plut. Tib. Gracch. 14); καταλύειν to put up as at an inn 
(common in later writers in this sense);— not to mention many 
others, whose intransitive signification has always been in use side by 
side with the transitive, as αὐξάνειν (p. 54), σπεύδειν, προκόπτειν, διατρί- 
Bew, τελευτᾷν, etc., or whose object was almost uniformly omitted be- 
cause involved in the signification of the verb, as ἀνοίγειν, ἀνακάμπτειν, 
γαμεῖν, ete. 

In other cases the omission of the object is not a result of the usage § 
by virtue of which the verb comprises the objective relation in itself, 


hard to decide, since the balance of authority is in favor of the latter, but other 
and internal considerations favor the former. See my Essay in the Stud. u. Krit. 
for 1858 p. 509. 

1 Tn Mark xiv. 72 καὶ ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιεν, the verb ἐπιβάλλειν has received the 
most diverse interpretations; see the commentaries. The interpretation common 
formerly (Luther, he began to weep |Tyndale, Cranmer, A.V. margin]) is supported, 
indeed, by the ancient versions, the variant ἤρξατο κλαίειν, and the gloss of Suidas 
ἐπέβαλε ἤρξατο; but is both too weak for the tenor of the passage, and also phil- 
ologically inaccurate, since ἐπέβαλε, as even the addition (ἐπεχείρησεν) in Suidas 
shows, may mean conatus est, but not coepit. It would harmonize best with the 
connection, considering the parallel narratives (ἔκλαυσεν πικρῶς Matt. xxvi. 75; 
Luke xxii. 62), to take ἐπιβαλών adverbially in the sense of ὑπερβαλλόντως (cf. 
the Hebrew D335 in 1 Sam. xx. 41; see Gesen. under 55) ; but such a use 
cannot be proved. The most satisfactory interpretation philologically is that 
ἐπιβαλὼν (sc. τὸν νοῦν) is equivalent to ἐννοήσας considering i.e. taking to heart, in 
case it is designed to intensify the preceding ἀνεμνήσθη. See a number of very 
appropriate precedents for this signification in Wetstein in loc. 

2 The 2d Aor. παραδοῦναι, in analogy with other (syncopated) 2d Aor. forms, is 
found in the Sept. also with this purely intransitive meaning, e.g. Isa. xlvii. 3. 
Hence in 1 Pet. ii. 23 (πάσχων οὖκ ἠπείλει, παρεδίδου δὲ τῷ κρίνοντι δικαίω5), it 
appears to be not only more in accordance with the sense but with philology also 
to supply with the Imperfect (παρεδίδου) an object like τὰ ἑαυτοῦ (or κρίσιν) 
from the context (with Luther et al.), not ἑαυτόν (deWette). The passage cited 
by deWette, Josh. xi. 19 (not ii. 19), runs quite different y in the Vat. ms. On 
παραδιδόναι in the sense of permitio, also with the objec (a thing) omitted, see 
Stephanus (Paris ed.) sub voce p. 247. 

19 


146 THE ACCUSATIVE. [§ 131 


but the objects are easily supplied from the context: as eg. 
αἴρειν sc. ἄγκυραν Acts xxvii. 18, σκάπτειν sc. γῆν Luke xiii. 8, 
ἀφανίζειν, κλέπτειν sc. χρήματα Matt. vi. 19, διορύσσειν 80. 
τεῖχος Matt. vi. 19, ῥῆ ξον (sc. φωνὴν see Wetst.) καὶ βόησον Gal. iy. 
27, στρῶσον σεαυτῷ sc. κλίνην Acts ix. 84, κατὰ κεφαλῆς 
ἔχων sc. κάλυμμα or simply τὶ 1 Cor. xi. 4, ἑτοιμάζειν sc. κατάλυμα 
Luke ix. 52, συλλαμβάνειν and συλλ. ἐν γαστρί sc. υἱόν Luke 
i. 24, 31; or the objects to be supplied are altogether general 
verms, as ἀποστέλλειν, πέμπειν 80. τινὰς, ἀκούσας SC. ταῦτα, 
σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι viz. that of which I am speaking 
Matt. xvi. 17; or are intentionally left in the dark by the writer 
on account of the variety of notions it is possible to supply, and the 
choice among them is referred to the reader, as Jas. iv. 2,3; Col. ii. 21. 

Respecting the omission of the object (or of the whole) with parti- 
tive statements, see § 132, 6 p. 158. 


Tue ACCUSATIVE. 
B. $181,2; H. $544a.; C. §472f.; D. § 464; J. $544. 

Among the verbs which by governing the Acc. depart as a 
rule from English and German usage, the following in the 
N. T. deserve special mention : 

Those signifying to speak well or ill (defame): καλῶς, κακῶς 
λέγειν, as usually with the Acc., but only used by Luke in vi. 26; Acts 
xxiii. 5 (quotn.). The common verb for defame is βλασφημεῖν, like- 
wise used with the Acc., as well of the person Matt. xxvii. 39 (or instead 
ὄνομα Jas. ii. 7; δόξας Jude 8) as of the thing Mark iii. 28, sometimes 
also with εἰς Mark iii. 29; Luke xii. 10, with ἐν 2 Pet. ii. 12 ἐν οἷς 
ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες (see ὃ 143, 10 p. 287), which, however, des- 
ignates rather the sphere within which the evil speaking occurs. 
Respecting ὀνειδίζειν, καταρᾶσθαι, see ὃ 188,9 p. 177; to do well: 
εὖ and καλῶς ποιεῖν with the Dat.: Luke vi. 27; Mark xiv. 7 Lchm. 
[Treg.] (yet cf. Tdf. ed. 7 in loc.), Matt. v.44 Grsb. The use of 
ποιεῖν With the Acc. of a word expressing time, as χρόνον, τρεῖς μῆνας, 
ἐνιαυτόν etc. for our spend (commorari) is peculiar, e.g. Acts xy. 33; 
xviii. 23; xx. 3; 2 Cor. xi. 25; Jas. iv. 13, (elsewhere also in later 
writers) ; to flee: φεύγειν in its strict sense (to run away) is 
construed only with ἀπό (in Rey. xx. 11 hebraistically ἀπὸ προσώπου), 
particularly with persons, ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ad ὑμῶν, and with abstracts 
instead, as ἀπὸ κρίσεως, ὀργῆς, εἰδωλολατρείας, Luke iii. 7; Matt. xxiii. 
33; 1 Cor. x. 14 (purely local, Mark xvi. 8); in the signification to 
avoid, abstain from, with the Acc. (of the thing) e.g. ταῦτα, τὴν πορ- 
νείαν, etc. Heb. xi. 34 (ἔφυγον στόματα paxaipys) is an exception. The 
corapound ἐκφεύγειν takes only the Acc. or is used absolutely, see 


§131.] THE ACCUSATIVE. 147 


Wahl, (ἐκ purely local in Acts xix. 16); on ἀποφεύγειν see ὃ 132, 5 p. 
L58; to swear: ὀμνύειν, with the Acc. only in Jas. v. 12; else- 
where with a preposition, and after the example of the Hebrew (cf. 
Gesen. under »2%3) most frequently by far with ἐν, sometimes with κατά 
and the Gen. Heb. vi. 13, 16, with eis (after a preceding ἐν, cf. ὃ 147 
under eis and év) Matt. v. 84 sq. “OpxiZew and ἐνορκίζειν (1 Thess. v. 
27) to adjure, always with two Accs., see Wahl; on the other hand, 
ἐξορκίζειν with κατά Matt. xxvi. 63. Cf. § 151, 24b) p. 394. 

Remark. With vexav the objective limitation is connected once 
by €k— quite unique, yet not so surprising in the language of the 
Apoc. abounding as it does in solecisms— (as it were, to win the 
victory over, Lat. victoriam ferre ex): Rev. xv. 2 τοὺς νικῶντας ἐκ τοῦ 
θηρίου, Vulg. gui vicerunt bestiam. 


Β. $181, N. 3; H. $544¢.; Ο. §472b.; J. § 489, Obs. 2. 

On the construction of verbs expressing anemotionof the mind 2 
see ὃ 133, 23 p. 185. Only those are connected with the Acc. of the 126 
person, which, like ἐλεεῖν, οἰκτείρειν, are pure transitives. On εὐδοκεῖν 
with the Acc. see as above. 


B. $131 N. 4; H. § 764b.; C. § 598. a.; J. § 669, 1. 

The Impersonal δεῖ (and δέον ἐστίν Acts xix. 36) is followed only ὃ 
by the Acc. and Infin. or, in general sayings, by the Infin. alone. Cf. 
§ 182,12 p. 164. Χρή occurs but once, likewise with the Infin.: 
Jas. iii. 10. 

B. § 181, 8; H. $544; C. $577; D. ὃ 480; J. § 869. 

To the verbs whose signification is originally or predom- 4 
inantly intransitive, but which are rendered transitive by the 
addition of an object, belong, among others from the N.T., 
the following: μαθητεύειν to be a disciple (verbs in edw formed 
from nouns and expressing the state or action of their 
primitives, Β. ὃ 119,3a.), τινά Matt. xxviii. 19 etc., θριαμβεύειν 
to hold a triumph, τινά (Plutarch) Col. ii. 15; 2 Cor. ii. 14; 
also ἐμπορεύεσθαί twa 2 Pet. ii. 8, πεινᾷν, διψᾷν δικαιοσύνην 
Matt. v. 6, θλέψεις με μένουσιν (me manent) Acts xx. 23 — 
according to a later and rather poetic use of the word. 

On the other hand, κλαίειν and πενθεῖν are found but once 
with the Acc. of the object (Matt. ii. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 21), elsewhere 
always with ἐπί and the Acc. or the Dat. see ὃ 147 p.336 sq.; προσ- 
κυνεῖν is joined to the Dative uniformly by Paul, and predominantly 
by the other writers (or to ἐνώπιόν twos ὃ 133, 3 p. 172); in the 
Apocalypse it is construed with both the Dat. and the Acc. (as 
in the Septuagint) without the slightest difference. Its synonym 


148 THE ACCUSATIVE. ig 131 


γονυπετεῖν is always followed by the Acc. (or ἔμπροσθεν) ; εὐαγ- 
γελίζεσθαι is connected indiscriminately now with the Dat., now with 
the Acc., of the person (see more below, nos. 5, 6); hence in the 
Passive πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται Matt. xi. 5; Luke x1 i. 16; Heb. iv. 
2, 6, etc., (the Act. εὐαγγελίζ εἰν occurs only in the Apocalypse). 


Β, 8181, 4; H. $547; ©. $477; Ὁ. 8 466; J. $548, 2. 
5 The construction by which an intransitive verb takes the 
Acc. of its kindred abstract noun (μάχην μάχεσθαι, ὑβρίζειν 
ὕβριν, etc.) rendered more definite by an adjunct, is not only 
current in the N.T., but, — fostered as it was by the analogous 
Hebrew usage (see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 809 sq. [Gr. § 135, Rem. 
1.]) and consequently by the Sept. also, — was taken up eagerly 
and even extended. 


Thus we find the following constructions used, and with the re- 
quisite closer limitation: αὔξειν αὔξησιν, ἁμαρτάνειν ἁμαρτίαν, θαυμάζειν 
θαῦμα, ὁμολογεῖν ὁμολογίαν, κρίσιν κρίνειν, στρατεύεσθαι στρατείαν, ἀγωνί- 
ζεσθαι ἀγῶνα, χαίρειν χαράν, φόβον (also πτόησιν 1 Pet. iii. 6) φοβεῖσθαι; 
and in the Passive βάπτισμα βαπτισθῆναι Mark x. 88 etc., ἐνδεδυμέ- 
vos ἔνδυμα γάμου Matt. xxii. 11, καυματίζεσθαι καῦμα μέγα Rev. xvi. 9,— 
where βάπτισμα, ἔνδυμα, καῦμα are the Accusatives of the object 
retained in the change of the verb to the Pass. (Mid.); see B. § 134, 
N. 2. 

Different from the above are those expressions in which the Ac- 
cusative takes the place of a simple object, and therefore the closer 
limitation is either wanting, or at least unnecessary, grammatically 
considered, (as in the Homeric xrépea κτερεΐζειν, etc.) ; thus διδόναι 
δόματα, αἰχμαλωτεύειν αἰχμαλωσίαν ducere captivos (after Ps. lxvii. 19), 
μαρτυρεῖν μαρτυρίαν, διδάσκειν διδασκαλίας, εὐαγγέλιον εὐαγγελίσασθαι, 

180 ἰδεῖν ὅραμα, διατίθεσθαι διαθήκην, φυλάσσειν φυλακάς, σπείρειν σπόρον 
(see still other examples in 6 below, and respecting δεῖν δεσμάς see 
7 p. 150). The difference between these constructions and the pre- 
ceding is plain from this, that when the verb is changed into the 
Passive, the Accusative, as the natural object, passes into the subject 
Nominative, as Acts xvi. 9 ὅραμα τῷ Παύλῳ ὥφθη, Mark xv. 26 ἡ 
ἐπιγραφὴ ἦν ἐπιγεγραμμένη, Gal. i. 11 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾽ 
ἐμοῦ: ; and in this way is to be explained 2 Cor. i. 11 ἵνα τὸ εἰς ἡμᾶς 
χάρισμα. . εὐχαριστηθῇ. 

Α further extension of this general usage is afforded not Be by 
the phrases (current elsewhere also) ἐλθεῖν ἡμέρας ὁδόν, δέρειν πολλάς 
sc. πληγάς (8 184, 6 p. 189) and moreover in several of the examples 
of the double Accusative which follow in 6 below, but also in such 
Relative constructions as John xvii. 26; Eph. ii. 4 ἀγάπην ἣν 


§ 181.] THE ACCUSATIVE. 149 


ἠγάπησάς με (cf. 6 sub fin.), Jude 15 περὶ τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας ὧν ἠσέ- 
βησαν (see ὃ 143, 11 p. 287), Rom. vi. 10 ὃ yup ἀπέθανεν, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ 
ἀπέθανεν - ὃ δὲ ζῇ, ζῇ τῷ θεῷ (i.e. mortem, vitam suam), Gal. ii. 20 ὃ δὲ 
(1.ᾳ. τὴν ζωὴν ἣν) νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί ete. 


Β. $181, 5; H. $658; C. § 480; D. $465; J. § 682 sq. 
Deviations from the construction of the double Accusa- ¢ 
tive (with the verbs given in the grammars, cf. J. § 583) are 
either rare or are founded in the analogy of common usage. 


Thus διδάσκειν is always joined with two Accs. (on Heb. v. 12 
see ὃ 140, 13 p. 268) except in Rev. ii. 14 ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλὰκ βαλεῖν 
ete. (cf. Ev. Nicod. 16, 2; Thom. 4, 2); this exception either follows 
Hebrew precedent (cf. Job vi. 24, etc., and Gesen. under 153), or, as is 
more probable, is due to the circumstance that διδάσκειν here has 
more the signification of συμβουλεύειν, παραινεῖν (see deWette). The 
adjunct ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ Col. i. 28; iii. 16 does not denote the object 
but the mode of teaching, cf. 1.9 ; κρύπτειν and ἀποκρύπτειν 
are used with the Acc. of the nearer and ἀπό with the Gen. of the 
more remote object, Matt. xi. 25 ἔκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν, Luke x. 
21, etc., hebraistically ἀπὸ προσώπου τινός Rey. vi. 16, ἀπ᾽ ὀφθαλμῶν 
σον Luke xix. 42 (cf. § 146, 1 p. 320) ; ἀφαιρεῖν and ἀφαι- 
ρεῖσθαί τι ἀπό τινος (according to ὃ 182, ὅ p. 157) Luke x. 42; 
xvi. 8, etc.; likewise αἰτεῖν and ἀπαιτεῖν τι ἀπό τινος Matt. xx. 
20; Luke vi. 30; xii. 20. But constructions like αἰτεῖν τι παρὰ 
θεοῦ, ἀφαιρεῖν τινί τι, ἐπερωτῆσαί τινα περὶ τοῦ ῥήματος are perfectly 
regular ; ποιεῖν is found with two Accs. according to the rule 
only in Matt. xxvii. 22 τί οὖν ποιήσω Ἰησοῦν, Mark xy. 12 Lchm. Treg. 
τί θέλετε ποιήσω τὸν βασιλέα τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (also according to the other 
reading [ποιήσω ὃν λέγετε etc. Tdf. cod. Sin.], see ὃ 127, 5 p. 105), else- 
where always with the Dative of the person — Matt. xxi. 40; Luke 
xx. 15; Acts ix. 13, etc. (in many passages the Dative would have 
been used, too, in ordinary prose, e.g. Mark vii. 12; x. 36, 51, etc.), 
or a Preposition instead, as Matt. xvii. 12 ἐποίησαν ἐν αὐτῷ ὅσα 
ἠθέλησαν (cf. Mark ix. 13), John xv. 21 ταῦτα πάντα ποιήσουσιν εἰς 
ὑμᾶς (Grsb. ὑμῖν). Cf. further the double Accusative in 10 p. 152. 

The following are more or less peculiar to the N. T.: περιβάλλειν 
τινά τι (in the classics commonly construed otherwise, see Dind. in 
Steph. Thes. sub voce), as John xix. 2 ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν περιέβαλον 
αὐτόν, cf. Luke xxiii. 11 var. (but τινί τι in xix. 43 [where Tdf. 
(with x) now reads παρεμβαλοῦσιν) ; and in combination with the 
construction mentioned in 5 p. 148: ποτίζειν τινὰ γάλα, ποτήριον 
Mark ix. 41; 1 Cor. iii. 2, φορτίζειν τινὰ φορτία Luke xi. 46, 
χρίειν τινὰ ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως Heb. i. 9 (quotn.) and ἐγχρίειν τοὺς 13] 


150 . THE ACCUSATIVE. [§ 131. 


ὀφθαλμοὺς κολλούριον Rev. iii. 18, ἀγαπᾷν ἀγάπην τινά (see 5 p. 148 sq.), 
Εὐαγγελίζεσθαι also is found once with two Accs. according to 
later usage (see Pape’s Lex.) in Acts xiii. 32—(a passage which is not 
to be explained by ὃ 151, 1 p. 376), but elsewhere always, if attended 
by two nouns or pronouns as objects, with the Dat. of the Pers. and 
the Acc. of the thing announced; as, Luke i. 19; Acts viii. 35; 
2 Cor. xi. 7, etc. Respecting ὁρκίζειν see above, 1 p. 147. 
On the constraction with the Passive see ὃ 184, 5 p. 188, 


Β. § 131, 6; H. $556; C. $490; D. $465; J. 88 375, 6; 625. 

With verbs denoting to make or hold for anything, and those 
of kindred signification, we find, besides the common con- 
struction of two Accusatives, the combination teva εἴς Te 
after the example of the Hebrew (Gesen. Lehrg. p. 814) or 
the Septuagint. “Ποιεῖν, and also καθιστάναι, τιθέναι, have, 
indeed, in the N. T. regularly two Accs., but in the Ὁ. T. 
commonly eis: Gen. xii. 2 ποιήσω σε eis ἔθνος μέγα, Ezek. iv. 
9; 2 Chron. xi. 22 κατέστησεν eis ἄρχοντα ᾿Αβιά, Deut. xxviii. 
18, etc. In analogy with these examples are the following: 
Acts xiii, 22 ἤγειρεν τὸν Aaveld αὐτοῖς εἰς βασιλέα, vii. 21 
ἀνεθρέψατο αὐτὸν ἑαυτῇ eis υἱόν, xiii. 47 τέθεικά σε εἰς φῶς 
ἐθνῶν (after Isa. xlix. 6 Alex.), Matt. xxi. 46 εἰς προφήτην 
αὐτὸν εἶχον (cf. vs. 26). In Matt. xiii. 30 the mss. vary between 
δήσατε αὐτὰ εἰς δεσμάς Lehm. [Tdf. cod. Sin.] and δεσμάς ᾿ 
Tdf. [eds. 2, 1]. [Treg. gives εἰς in Ὀγϑοικοίβ. 


This Hebraistic mode of expression occurs more frequently still 
where the construction requires the double Nominative, especially 
with εἶναι and γενέσθαι ; for example in the repeated quotations ἔσονται 
εἰς σάρκα μίαν (after Gen. ii. 24), ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας (after Ps. 
exvii. 22). Cf. Luke iii. 5 (quotn.), xiii. 19 ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον μέγα, 
John xvi. 20 ἡ λύπη εἰς χαρὰν γενήσέται, Rom. xi. 9 (quotn.), 1 Cor. 
xv. 45 (quotn.), 2 Cor. vi. 18 ἔσομαι ὑμῖν εἰς πατέρα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μοι 
εἰς υἱούς (as in 2 Sam. vii. 14 etc.), Heb. i. 5; viii. 10; 1 John v. 8; 
Rev. viii. 11. Yet not all the passages of the sort are to be forcibly 
brought under this class, since there are many which can be satisfac- 
torily explained by Greek usage (for γένεσθαι εἴς τι is a Greek phrase 
also), and where the application of the above Hebraism would be 
erroneous and disturbing to the sense; as, 2 Cor. viii. 14; Col. ii. 22; 


1 Formerly πείθειν also was numbered among the verbs that take two Accs. 
on account of Acts xix. 8; xxviii. 23; recent editors, however, have expunged 
τὰ in both passages, [restored in xix. 8 by Tdf. with cod. Sin.]._ The Acc. with 
the Passive (Heb. vi. 9, etc.) is explainable by no. 10 below, p. 152. 


§131.] THE ACCUSATIVE 151 


Jas. v. 3 (εἰς φθοράν, εἰς μαρτύριον ἔσται tend, redound ‘o destruction, 
prove a witness), Rev. xvi. 19, etc. Similarly λαμβάνειν (ri εἴς τι): 
Heb. xi. 8 τόπον ὃν ἔμελλεν λαμβάνειν εἰς κληρονομίαν, and probably 
Acts vii. 53 also. 

Remark. Likewise borrowed from the language of the Septuagint 
and a departure from classic usage (for Xen. Cyr. 3, 1, 88 and 
the like are not parallel) is the current combination λογίζομαι 
eis τι in the signification to be reckoned or set to the account of, as 
ete., for example, in the oft-repeated quotation ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς 
δικαιοσύνην (after the Sept. of Gen. xv. 6. That the Hebr. aun is 
capable of the same construction, see 1 Sam. i. 13 and Gesen. sub 
voce), and further in the phrases εἰς οὐδὲν λογισθῆναι, ἡ ἀκροβυστία εἰς 
περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται, τὰ τέκνα λογίζεται εἰς σπέρμα Acts xix. 27; 
Rom. ii. 26; ἰχ. 8.ι. But the phrases with ὡς, Rom. viii. 86 ἐλογίσθημεν 


os πρόβατα (after the Sept. of Ps. xliii. 23, Hebr. 3), or with μετά 


and the Gen. Luke xxii. 37 (for which the Sept. in Isa. liii. 12 use 
ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις), have a different meaning and are not opposed to 
Greek usage. 


According to a construction not unknown to the Greeks also 
(see Bhdy. Synt. p. 66; Matth. § 308; Lob. ad Phryn. p. 517; 
Schaef. in Schol. Apoll. Rhod. p. 209) the predicative term 
with verbs of naming sometimes stands in the Nominative 
instead of any other case: John xiii. 13 φωνεῖτέ we ὁ διδάσκαλος 
καὶ ὁ κύριος (οἵ. 1 Sam. ix. 9), Rev. ix. 11 ὄνομα ἔχει ᾿Απολλύων. 
On τὸ ὄρος τὸ καλούμενον ᾿Ελαιών see p. 22. 

From the Hebrew usage (iau-mx ἪΡ Gen. iv. 25, 26; v. 2, 3, etc.) 
or from the Sept. are borrowed the (pleonastic) expressions καλέσεις 
TO ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, Ἰωάννην, ---- 4180 in the Pass. ἐκλήθη τὸ 
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς Matt. i.21; Luke i. 31; ii. 21; Rev. xix. 18, etc.; 
for the classic use of καλεῖν ὄνομα (B. § 131, N. 11; J. § 588, 1) is 
manifestly of a different nature.! 


1 Quite isolated is the reading of cod. Vat. in Matt. x. 25 εἰ τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ 
BeeA(eBovB [Βεεζεβοὺλ ed. Tdf.; so Sin.] ἐπεκάλεσαν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον τοῖς οἰκιακοῖς 
αὐτοῦ, which has been adopted by Lchm. It belongs to those which without ms. 
support from other quarters will hardly succeed in gaining the general approval of 
critics against the entire mass of remaining authorities [cod. Sin. also]. Yet itis 
very improbable that it should be the emendation of a grammarian who took ém- 
καλεῖν here in the sense of reproach with (Meyer). ’Emiaaeiy here, at least in an- 
cient times, was taken in no other signification than to name, or more accurately to 
give the surname, cognomentum daemonis addiderunt (as Hilary expressly translates 
the passage). Too little attention, however, to the composition with ἐπί naturally 
led to the result that the Latin versions rendered in accordance with their idiom, 
patrem vocaverunt; and this, again, in the Greek mss. not only led to the easy alter- 
ation of the Dative into the Acc., but also—what is very significant—to the 


182 


133 
9 


10 


1 


152 THE ACCUSATIVE. ὁ gist 


Β. 8181, 7; H. $649; C. § 481; J. § 579. 

The Acc. of limitation with adjectives and other pred- 
icative terms, known under the name of the Greek Acc., has 
passed in the N. T. pretty much out of use. Single instances 
are Heb. ii. 17 πιστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, Rom. xii. 18 
etc. cf. § 125, 12 p. 96. \ For the most part the Dative, or a 
Prep. like κατά, is substituted for it; as, Luke xxiv. 25 βραδεῖς 
τῇ καρδίᾳ, Mark vii. 26; Acts iv. 36 Κύπριος τῷ γένει, xviii. 3 
σκηνοποιοὶ τῇ τέχνῃ ([so cod. Sin.], Grsb. τὴν 7.), and the 
expressions ἀπὼν τῷ σώματι, Tapov τῷ πνεύματι, σοφοὶ ... 
συγγενεῖς ... κύριοι κατὰ σάρκα, ταπεινὸς κατὰ πρόσωπον, etc. 
On the other hand, with the Passive (Middle) the Ace. is 
much in use, see §§ 134 and 135. 


Β. 8181, 8 and N. 12; C. §478a.; J. § 579, 6. 

Instances of the pronominal Accusative neuter with 
verbs which otherwise govern a different case, are: Luke ix. 45 
αἴσθωνται αὐτό, Matt. xix. 20 ti ὑστερῶ (ὃ 132, 22 p. 169), 
2 Cor. xii. 13 ὃ ἡττήθητε (ἡσσώθητεν), Acts xxv. 8 Tu ἥμαρτον, 
μεριμνᾷν τὰ τοῦ κυρίου 1 Cor. vii. 82 etc., even οὐδὲν χρείαν 
ἔχω Rev. iii. 17 (οἵ, 8 129, 5 p. 127). Examples of cases in 
which the verb is connected with two Accusatives in conse- 
quence of this usage only are: Luke iv. 35 μηδὲν βχλάψαν αὐτόν, 
Matt. xxvii. 44 τὸ αὐτὸ ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν, Acts xxv. 10; Gal. iv. 
12 οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε, Mark viii. 836; Gal. v. 2 etc. ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν 
ὠφελήσει. With the Passive: πείθεσθαι οὐδέν, ra κρείττονα 
Acts xxvi. 26; Heb. vi. 9. 

Respecting Acts xiii. 2 see § 147, 30 p. 342. 


B. 8 181, 9; H. § 550; C. ὃ 482; D. p. 498; J. § 548g., of. 8 905, Obs. 2, 7. 

The use of the Accusative in giving the duration of time 
and the measure of distance agrees with the ordinary use. 
It is seldom employed in the more definite specifications of 


change of ἐπικαλεῖν into the simple καλεῖν (see the various readings). To this it 
must be added : that another leading authority, the cod. Alex., is wanting here, and 
the saying is one of those preserved by the evangelist Matt. alone; and in particu- 
lar, the circumstance that the construction of ἐπικαλεῖν with the Dat. in consequence 
of the ἐπί in composition (B. ὁ 147, N. 9) can not only be established grammatically, 
but the employment of the Dative in this connection is so natural that it would be 
most likely to suggest itself to an author of little practice, writing in the language of 
the people. Moreover, compare the altogether analogous example of ἐπονομάζειν 
with the Dat. in Greek authors in Steph. sub voce, Heind. on Plato’s Phaedr. 30 
and of «αλεῖν ὄνομα τινί in B. ὁ 181, N. 11; Heini. on Plato’s Crat. 6. 


8131. THE ACCUSATIVE. 153 


time, — as John iv. 52 for which in vs. 53 ἐν with the Dat. is 
used, yet with a slight difference. 

Further, mention deserves to be made of the peculiar position 
(which originated perhaps through the influence of the Latin usage, 
and frequently occurs also in writers of the xowy, as Plutarch, Lucian, 
Appian, Josephus) of the prepositions ἀπό and πρό in specifications 
of place and time; as, John xi. 18 ἦν Βηθανία ἐγγὺς τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων 
ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων δεκαπέντε some fifteen stadia distant from Jerusalem, 
xxi. 8; Rey. xiv. 20; John xii. 1 πρὸ ἐξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα ἦλθεν six 
days before the Passover (cf. Amos i. 1; iv. 7, and the corresponding 184 
(Latinizing) use in Plutarch e.g. Philop. 4; Oth. 11, and in Appian 
e.g. 1.15; 2.115, etce.). Together with these constructions the com- 
mon one is in use, Luke xxiv. 13, ete. Cf. Zumpt, Gr. § 396. 


B. § 131, 10; H. § 552; C. § 488; D. p. 502; J. 8 579. 

The Acc. as an adverbial adjunct of the mode, etc., 12 
as τὴν ἀρχήν, τὸν ἀριθμόν as respects number, τοὔνομα by name 
(Matt. xxvii. 57), μακράν sc. ὁδόν, has its foundation in ordi- 
nary usage. But ἀκμήν in the sense of adhuc (Matt. xv. 16) 
is un-Attic (see Pape). On the Hebraism ὁδὸν θαλάσσης 
(a: 372) Matt. iv. 15 see Meyer in loc. 


B. § 131, NN. 13, 14; H. $547d.; C. §481b.; D. § 467; J. 8 680. 

Analogous to the use of the Acc. in classic Greek as if in 43 
apposition to a clause, and before proverbs, quotations, etc., is 
its varied employment also in the N. T. in certain abbrevi- 
ated and parenthetic adjuncts,—appositive limitations, ° 
as it were, of the preceding or following thought (not of single 
words, — a case in which the Nominative sometimes appeared 
contrary to the rule, § 123,5 p. 78). When such adjuncts 
are in the Neuter, it is hardly possible to say positively whether 
they are to be taken as Nominatives or as Accusatives. 


Examples: a) referring to what precedes, Rom. xii. 1 παρακαλῶ 
ὑμᾶς παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ..., τὴν λογικὴν 
λατρείαν ὑμῶν --α δὴ adjunct which can neither be regarded as in 

apposition to θυσίαν alone, nor as an object dependent immediately on 
᾿ παρακαλῶ. 2 Thess.i.5 évSerypa τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως and Rev. xxi. 17 
μέτρον ἀνθρώπου may also be taken as Accusatives. Further, Acts 
x. 86 Tdf. [cod. Sin. Treg.] τὸν Ady ov, dv ἀπέστειλεν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ 
etc., for with ὑμεῖς οἴδατε (vs. 37) begins a new paragraph, so that τὸν 
λόγον does not belong to that as object (Meyer). The omission of 


ὃν (Lchm.) has probably been occasioned by the unusual character 
20 


14 


135 


1 


154 THE GENITIVE. a I$ 182. 


of the construction. In Rev. i. 20 τὸ μυστήριον may be construed 
simply as the object of the preceding γράψον ; b) referring to what 
follows, Rom. viii. 3 τὸ yap ἀδύνατον etc., Heb. viii. 1 κεφάλαιον δέ 
etc.; yet these two Neuter adjuncts may be taken unhesitatingly as 
Nominatives also, according to § 151, 6 p. 381. 


B. § 181, N. 16; H. $545; C. 8 476; J. § 579, 8. 

An Acc. of exclamation might be found in Rev. xii. 12 which 
according to Lchm.’s text[so Tdf Treg.; Sin. gives οὐαὶ eis etc.] runs 
oval τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, Vulg. vae terrae et mari. But since 
οὐαί (differing from the exclamation of astonishment ovd Mark xv. 29) 
neither in the Apocalypse nor anywhere else is otherwise construed 
than either with the Dative or with the Vocative instead (in which 
case the Dative can be omitted, Rev. xviii. 10, 16, 19), and the woe 
is aimed at the ¢rhabitants of the earth as is plain from the following 
ὑμᾶς and the context, it is necessary to educe the idea τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν 
(which the Rec. has adopted) out of the preceding σκηνοῦντες and to 
let the Acc. depend on that. Compare under this head the examples 
in § 151, 23 d) p. 392 sq. 


Tue GENITIVE. 
B. § 182, 1; H. § 558; C. § 444 g.; D. p. 482; J. § 464. 

Assuming the distinction between the subjective Genitive 
and the objective to have been made plain by the general 
grammar, we remark here: 

1) That the union of substantives, especially abstract terms, 
by the Genitive relation is employed with fondness by some 
of the N. T. writers, particularly by Paul in his doctrinal 
argumentations and by the author of the Apocalypse, so that 
two,three, yes four, Genitives stand in immediate dependence 
one upon another. Such an accumulation of Genitives is 
manifestly avoided by the native Greeks, because it easily 
begets ambiguity (see e.g. 1 Thess. i. 3; Rom. xi. 33, etc.). 

2) That exegetes, especially where dogmatic interests come 
in, differ very much in interpreting a Genitive, whether as 
subjective or objective; and yet the settlement of the 
matter is properly left to them, because grammar, from its 
point of view, must concede in most cases the possibility of 
both opinions; ef. Winer 186 (175). As the subject, however, 
is one of weighty importance for the understanding of Scripture, 
and the decision in all dispu‘ed cases necessarily presumes 
thorough investigation of the usage of individual writers, ex- 


§ 132.] THE GENITIVE. 155 


position of the internal con1 ection in every passage, comparison 
of parallel expressions, and the like, it well deserves a separate 
and systematic treatment of its own. 

The mode of expression mentioned under 1) we will illustrate 
in a number of instances. The ambiguity easily occasioned 
by accumulating Genitives it was sought to avoid as follows: 

a) If the Genitives depend one on another, they stand, as 
far as possible, in the order in which they depend on one 
another ; 

b) If, however, two Genitives depend on one and the 
same substantive, this fact is also, at least as a rule, indicated 
by the position (before and after the governing substantive). 


Examples under a) Of two Genitives: Col. ii. 2 τὸ πλοῦτος 

τῆς πληροφορίας THs συνέσεως, ii. 11 ἡ ἀπέκδυσις τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκός, 
Rom. xi. 88 ὦ βάθος πλούτου καὶ σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως θεοῦ (where, gram- 
matically viewed, it may be doubtful whether σοφίας and γνώσεως 
depend together with πλούτου upon βάθος, or both together upon 
πλούτου ; the context favors the former opinion, see Mey. in loc.) ete. 
Of three Genitives, —then as a rule the last is a personal (possessive) 16 
term which easily unites with its predecessor into one whole: 2 Cor. 
iv. 4 τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Col. i. 13 τὴν 
βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, 1 Thess. i. 8 (μνημονεύοντες ὑμῶν ...) 
τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ---- where the 
five Genitives are to be so arranged that τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
is taken as a whole and governed by ἐλπίδος, which together with 
ὑμῶν (according to Ὁ) below) is governed by ὑπομονῆς, and this by the 
verb μνημονεύοντες, Eph. i. 19 κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ κράτους τῆς ἰσχύος 
αὐτοῦ, iv. 13 (twice); i. 6; Heb. v. 12, ete. Of four Genitives: 
Rev. xix. 15 πατεῖ τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ 
παντοκράτορος, cf. xvi. 19; xiv. 8. The O. T. also offers examples of 
the sort. 

Examples under b): Rev. vii. 17 ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων (cf. ὃ 147, 

31 p. 343), Acts v. 82 Tdf. [eds. 2,7; not 8] ἐσμὲν αὐτοῦ μάρτυρες τῶν 
ῥημάτων τούτων, 2 Cor. v. 1 ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους, Phil. ii. 30 
τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς λειτουργίας, 1 Thess. i. 3, see under a). Further, 
position requires us in Rev. iii. 10 (τὸν λόγον τῆς ὑπομονῆς pov) to 
make μου depend on ὑπομονῆς, in Heb. vi. 1 rod Χριστοῦ on τῆς ἀρχῆς, 
not on λόγον; and in 2 Pet. iii. 2 rod κυρίου is hardly to be carried 
over ἐντολῆς and connected with ἀποστόλων, which according to the 
Mss. [ Sin. also] has already the Gen. ὑμῶν (not ἡμῶν Rec. Grsb. and 
the translation). ‘The passages where, besides, the Genitive is sep- 
arated from its substantive, as 1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 6; 1 Pet. 


156 PERIPHRASIS OF THE GENITIVE. [§ 132. 


iii. 21, etc., are of a different sort, and hardly admit of a doubt as re- 
spects the meaning; see respecting them in connection with §151, 13, 
14 p. 887. The reference of cov, however, in Rev. xviii. 14 is doubtful 
(even according to the mss. [δὲ puts it before τῆς ἐπιθ. 7). 

2 Remark. Exegetical works on the N. T., particularly the older, 
often speak of a periphrasis of the Genitive (subjective and 
objective) by means of prepositions, especially κατά with the Acc. 
Winer 193 (182), Fritzsche, Meyer, and others, have declared them- 
selves as decidedly opposed to this expression; and in truth, as 
respects the origin and philosophy of the matter, with entire correct- 
ness, since we cannot speak of the two modes of expression as gram- 
matically identical, and in general, caution must be exercised in the 
application of such terms. The simplicity and intelligibleness of 
grammatical exposition would suffer, however, should we insist in 
practice upon carrying this caution too far; for the rigorous application 
of this principle would affect also many other phenomena which in 
grammatical discourse we are wont to meet with under the title 
“ Periphrasis.” We do not take offence when grammars speak of a 
periphrasis of the partitive genitive by means of prepositions,as ἐξ, ἐν, 
in Latin ex, de, inter ; just as little should we in the present case. The 
only important point is that we connect the right views with gram- 
matical terminology. (Cf. in ὃ 151 the chapter on Ellipsis pp. 390 sqq.) 

That is to say, since it was at all times easy (in comparison, for 
example, with the Latin) for the Greek language by virtue of its 
arrangement of words, which was in this particular rigidly prescribed 
(cf. § 125), to make prepositional phrases dependent immediately 
upon substantives, it is in perfect analogy with the development 
of language to assume, that the later language (of prose), agreeably 
to its analytic nature, carried the application of this usage further and 
further, and employed prepositional expressions even where the earlier 

137 language still preferred the simple case. So that, strictly speaking, 
the case was not periphrased, but the prepositional phrase displaced 
the simple case, or, as Bernhardy (Synt. p. 241) aptly describes it, was 
employed in the sense of the Genitive. Just as we, instead of 
‘your faith, might also say ‘the faith among you’ 1.6. the faith ex- 
isting among you, so too, we find in the N. T. instead of the usual 
ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν the phrase ἡ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστις (Eph. i. 15), and in other 
writers οἱ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ῥήτορες (Longin. 15. 8) instead of the ordinary 
ot ῥήτορες ὑμῶν (cf. Acts xvii. 28). Now if such an instance as this 
occurs often, and shapes itself into a species of usage, as was un- 
deniably the case in the later language with κατά and the Acc. (e.g. 
ἡ κατὰ THY ἀρχὴν ἀπόθεσις, ἡ κατὰ TO σῶμα ῥώμη Diod. Sic., ἡ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν 
ἀρετή Ael., ai κατ᾽ ᾿Αννίβαν πράξεις, ἣ κατὰ τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατολή; ... πορεία, 


§ 132.] PERIPHRASIS OF THE GENITIVE. 157 


τὰ κατὰ τὰς πλατείας διαστήματα Polyb., etc.), the grammarian is per- 
fectly authorized to call this, for brevity’s sake, as is done in so 
many other cases, a periphrasis for the Genitive in the sense above 
defined. 

Lastly, it is in no wise agreeable to the nature of these expressions 
to supply everywhere in explaining them (as is so frequently done) 
an omitted verbal idea (as dv, γενόμενος, etc.) ; just as we do not 
deem it necessary also to supply such an ellipsis with the periphrasis 
for the partitive Genitive. On the contrary, the verbal idea is either 
already included in the governing substantive, as (to take an example 
from the N. T.) in Phil. i. 5 ἡ κοινωνία ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (see 8 
p- 160), or is naturally suggested by the context, or by the force of 
the preposition, as Mark v. 26 τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτῆς πάντα (otherwise τὰ ἑαυτῆς), 
2 Cor. viii. 7 ἡ ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀγάπη, Acts xxiii. 21 ἡ ἀπὸ σοῦ ἐπαγγελία (thy 
promise, consent). ‘That in this sense also we can call the super- 
scriptions (which without doubt are very ancient) εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ 
Μαθθαῖον, etc., (precisely, gospel according to the understanding, 
apprehension, of Matthew) circumlocutions instead of the Genitive, is 
plain. In a manner quite similar, as we shall see below, 10 p. 161, 
attributes (with substantives) which we regularly reproduce by 
adj j ectives are SF prpawen both by the Gen. of a subst. and also by 
xara with the Acc. 


B. § 132, N. 1; H. § 677; C. §588d.; Ὁ. p. 482; J. § 652, Obs. 6. 
Examples of the use of the Possessive pronoun instead of the 3 
objective Genitive of a personal pronoun are Luke xxii. 19; 
1 Cor. xi. 24 τοῦτο ποιεῖτε eis τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, Rom. xi. 31 τῷ 
ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει, 1 Cor. xvi. 17 τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα, xv. 31 Tdf. [so 
Lehm. Treg. cod. Sin., etc. | νὴ τὴν ὑμετέραν καύχησιν. In John xv. 9 
the idea of mutual love seems to predominate. 


B. § 182, 2; H. §559b.; C. $418a.; Ὁ. Ρ. 482 5ᾳ.; J. § 542, vi. Ὁ. 

The Genitive of the country in the mention of citiesis 4 
found in Matt. xxi. 11; Marki. 9 Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, John 
ii. 1 etc. Κανᾶ... Βηθσαϊδὰ τῆς Tad.; moreover Τάρσος τῆς 
Κιλικίας, Πέργη τῆς Παμφυλίας, etc. 


Β. 8182, 8. 4 ἀπὰ Ν'. 2; H. 8 ὅ798ᾳ.; C. 8 406; D. 461; J. §§ 529, 530. 

That the genitive as the whence-case, in particular the 5 
Genitive of separation with the corresponding predicates, 
is very frequently elucidated or periphrased by the addition 
of the prepositions ἀπό and ἐκ (ἐκ χειρός ὃ 133, 20 p. 182) 
does not need to be detailed; see the lexicons under αἴρειν, 135 


158 THE PARTITIVE GENITIVE. [§ 132 


ἀφαιρεῖν and ἀφαιρεῖσθαι,1 ἐλευθεροῦν, καθαρίζειν, λούειν (to 
bathe, cleanse from), λύειν, λυτροῦν, ῥύεσθαι, σώζειν, χωρίζειν, 
the adjectives ἄσπιλος (Jas. i. 27), καθαρός (Acts xx. 26), 
ἀθῷος (Matt. xxvii. 24), etc. Cf 8147 under ἐκ pp. 326sq., 
and ἀπό pp. 322 sqq. 

With other words this insertion of the preposition occurs less fre- 
quently; e.g. παύειν 1 Pet. iii. 10, ἀναπαύεσθαι ἐκ τῶν κόπων 
Rey. xiv. 13 rest from (after) their labors, torepetv Heb. xii. 15, 
κωλύειν Luke vi. 29. In general, the Hebrew use of 12 with these 
and similar terms (see e.g. 2 Sam. iii. 28, also the Sept. ἀθῷος ἀπό) 
may not have been without influence. 

Other verbs are, perhaps accidentally, connected only with the 
Genitive ; see the lexicons under διαφέρειν, ἀποστερεῖσθαι (respecting 
Jas. v. 4 see ὃ 147, 6 p. 326), παύεσθαι. ᾿Αποφεύγειν, as a transitive 
construed commonly with the Acc. (2 Pet. ii. 20), also takes by virtue 
of its composition the Genitive (2 Pet.i. 4). On κρύπτειν and its 
compounds see ὃ 131, 6 p. 149, and on ἁμαρτάνειν see ὃ 133, 3 Rem. 
Ρ. 173. 

B. § 182, 5; H. 8 559; C. § 415sq.; J. ὃ 583, of. § 898 6, 

Agreeably to what was said above (2 p. 156), instead of 
the partitive Genitive we far more frequently find a periphrasis 
by means of prepositions. Thus particularly (as in Latin) 
els, δύο, τινὲς, πολλοὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν, or with ἐν (corresponding to the 
Latin inter) as Jas. v. 13, 14, 19 ἐάν τις ἐν ὑμῖν πλανηθῇ, ete., 
and with εἶναι Matt. ii. 6; Rom. i. 6, etc. The language of 
the N. T. goes further, too, in that it not infrequently omits 
the indefinite part (τινές), so that there then remains 
merely the whole in the Genitive, with or without é«; and this 
Genitive then takes in the sentence the place of the subject, 
or of the object. (On this point compare the earlier Greek 
usage in B. p. 484 note, 21st Germ. ed.; p. 497 note, 22d 
ditto.) 


Examples: Acts xxi. 16 συνῆλθον καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν σὺν ἡμῖν, John 
xvi. 17 εἶπον οὖν ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Rev. xi. 9 βλέ- 
πουσιν ἐκ τῶν λαῶν (sc. πολλοῦ ... τὸ πτῶμα αὐτῶν, Matt. xxiii. 34 


1 Καθελεῖν, also, in the signification to take down is used with ἀπό (Acts 
xiii. 29), but in the signification to destroy, always with the Acc. of the object. 
Hence in Acts xix. 27 (the text of which is very uncertain) the Accusative 
τὴν μεγαλειότητα (Tdf. [eds. 2,7]) is more simply taken as Subjeet-Ace. of 
καθαιρεῖσθαι (without αὐτῆς it might according to § 134, 7 p. 189 be taken as the 
Object-Acc.). On the other reading (which is the more difficult, and is supported 
by the most important mss. [δὲ also]) τῆς μεγαλειότητος αὐτῆς (Lchm. Tdf. Treg.) 
the Genitive must be explained according to what is said below, 7 p. 159. 


§ 132.] THE PARTITIVE GENITIVE. 159 


ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενεῖτε ... καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν μαστιγώσετε, Luke xxi. 16; Rev. 
ii. 10; Matt. xiii. 47 ἐκ παντὸς γένους (sc. ti) συνάγειν. Hence, too, 
the participial limitations that follow can be subjoined in the 
Nominative or the Accusative: John vii. 40 ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου οὖν, 
ἀκούσαντες τῶν λόγων, ἔλεγον (Grsb. adds πολλοΐ), Acts xxi. 16; 
2 John 4 εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. 
Similar to these examples is Acts xv. 7 ἐν ὑμῖν ἐξελέξατο ὃ θεὸς ete. 
Isolated instances of the sort occur even in classic authors; as, 
Xen. An. 3, 5, 16; Ages. 1. 22, etc. Cf. the following paragraph. 

Remark. Examples of the use of the whole with ὁ we... ὁ δέ in 
the same case with the part, do not occur. But similar to Anab. 
5, 5, 11 is Eph. v. 33 ὕμ εἷς of καθ᾽ ἕνα ἕκαστος ... ἀγαπάτω etc. 


B. §182, 5c); H. 8 572a.; C. § 421sq.; D. p. 4738q.; J. ὃ 533. 

The beginnings of the usage treated of above (in 6) appear 
in the connection (so frequent in the classics) of the partitive 
Genitive immediately with verbs, principally with εἶναι 
(with which it is usual to supply ris, τὶ for explanation) ; as, 
Acts xxiii. 6 τὸ ἕν μέρος ἐστὶν Σαδδουκαίων, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον Φαρι- 
σαίων, 1 Tim. i. 20 ὧν ἐστιν “Ὑμέναιος (on the Gen. with εἶναι 
see in its place, 11 below, p. 162.sq.) —and when the Gen. is 
resolved by ἐκ : John xviii. 17 καὶ od ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν «i, Luke 
xxii. 58, etc. But the whole without any specification of part 
is commonly enough found also in connection with words of 
complete predication, as διδόναι, λαμβάνειν, ἐσθίειν, etc.; yet 
here again there is this difference, that the whole does not as 
in the earlier Greek writers stand in the simple Genitive (with 
the exception of Rev. ii. 17), but depends on an intervening 
preposition (ἐξ, ἀπό). 

Examples: Luke χχ. 10 ἀπὸ τοῦ καρποῦ τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος δώσουσιν 
αὐτῷ, 1 John iv. 18 ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν, Matt. xxv. 8; 
Mark xii. 2 ἵνα λάβῃ ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν, Rev. xviii. 4; John xxi. 10 
ἐνέγκατε ἀπὸ τῶν ὀψαρίων, Acts ii. 17 ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός μου ; and 
particularly often with the words φαγεῖν and πιεῖν, Matt. xv. 27 τὰ 
κυϊάρια ἐσθίει ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων, 1 Cor. xi. 28 ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω, Luke 
xxii. 18 οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου, John iv. 14 ἐκ τοῦ 
ὕδατος, vi. 50; 1 Cor. ix. 7, etc. By this construction are also to be 
explained Acts v. 2 évordicaro ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς i.e. a part of the price, 
Rey. v. 9 ἠἡγόρασας ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς sc. πολλούς (for ἡμᾶς [so cod. Sin.] 
is a later addition). 

Remark. (B. §1325b.; H. § 589; C. § 420; J. §527). Examples 
of partitive specifications of time with adverbs are Matt. xxviii. 
1 ὀψὲ σαββάτων, Luke xviii. 12 δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου. Cf. Col. ii. 16. 


139 


160 THE PARTITIVE GENITIVE. [8 132. 


Β. $182, 5d); H. § 574; C. 88 424, 497; D. p. 472 5ᾳ.; J. $585. 

δ Among the verbs of partaking, etc., we may notice, 
κληρονομεῖν only with the Acc.; μεταδιδόναι with the 
Dat. of the person and Acc. of the thing; λαγχάνειν with 
the Acc. (see Wahl), respecting the Gen. see § 140, 16a) 
p. 269; μετέχειν once also with ἐκ (for the simple Gen.) 
Ἵ Cor. x. 17, μέρος ἔχειν μετά twos (of the person) John xiii. 
8, and ἔν τινι (of the thing) Rev. xx. 6; κοινωνεῖν only once 
with the Gen. (Heb. ii. 14), elsewhere always with the Dative, 
as well of the thing (Rom. xii. 13, etc.) as also of the person, 

140 in which case the Dat. of the thing (in which) is expressed by 
a circumlocution with ἐν Gal. vi. 6 (see Mey.), or even with 
eis Phil. iv. 15 οὐδεμία μοι ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως 
etc. let me take part in the account etc. 

The Substantive κοινωνία is often construed with εἰς (cf. 2 above) 
2 Cor. ix. 13; Phil. i. 5, also with πρός 2 Cor. vi. 14; κοινωνίαν ἔχειν 
with μετά 1 John i. 3, 6,7. The Adjective κοινωνός is commonly 
construed with the Gen. (of the person and the thing) ; the person is 
also put in the Dat. (Luke v. 10), and the thing construed with ἐν 
(Matt. xxiii. 30). 


B. § 182, ὅ 6) and N. 10; H. §574b.; C. § 426; Ὁ. p. 488 5ᾳ.; J. § 586. 

9 Verbs signifying to lay hold of, to touch, are sometimes 
construed with the Genitive, and sometimes also, inasmuch as 
from their nature they easily assume a purely transitive sig- 
nification, with an object-Accusative. 


Among the compounds of λαμβάνεσθαι the verb ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι, 
which governs as well the Gen. of the person as of the thing, is con- 
nected with both Genitives at the same time by Luke in xx. 
20,26. But that it is said in the Middle to govern also an Accusative 
of the person, arises from a misapprehension of the construction. 
Nowhere (not in Greek authors even) does such an Acc., where it 
seems to occur, depend on the verb ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι alone, but it in all 
cases stands connected with another transitive verb, so that the Acc. 
is dependent on both predicates together (by the σχῆμα ἀπὸ κοινοῦ ; 
cf. § 133,11 note1p.178). The examples of this use (quite classic in 
cast) are, moreover, all from Luke’s writings: Acts ix. 27 ἐπιλαβόμενος 
αὑτὸν ἤγαγεν, Xvi. 19 ἐπιλαβόμενοι τὸν ἸΤαῦλον εἵλκυσαν, xviii. 17 ἐπιλα- 
βόμενοι Swobevnv ἔτυπτον ---- passages which are to be construed like 
Luke xiv. 4 ἐπιλαβόμενος ἰάσατο αὐτόν. ΕΤΠΟΥ, ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι 

always has the Genitive. On the other hand, προσλαμβάνεσθαι 
agreeably to its composition and signification (take to one’s self, take 


§ 182.] THE GENITIVE FOR AN ADJECTIVE. 161 


up, take aside) is uniformly joined to the Accusative (of the person) : 
Matt. xvi. 22; Acts xvii. 5; Philem.17, etc. The Gen. of the thing 
(τροφῆς Acts xxvii. 36) may be explained either by 7 p. 159, or 19 
p. 167; (but in vs. 34 προσλαβεῖν is a false reading instead of 
μεταλαβεῖν). ᾿ 

Τὸ ἔχεσθαι (Heb. vi. 9) we may add the compounds ἀντέχεσθαι 
and ἀνέχεσθαι which always have the Genitive; (in 2 Thess. i. 4 
the Dative is to be explained by attraction, but cod. B has the very 
important variant ἐν έχεσθε). 

K parety which in the N. T. has become for the most part a perfect 
transitive to lay hold of, hold fast (κρατήσας τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην, κρατεῖν τὴν 
παράδοσιν, τὴν διδαχήν, κράτει ὃ ἔχεις, οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐκρατοῦντο Luke xxiv. 
10, etc.), in a figurative sense is connected sometimes also with the 
Genitive, Acts xxvii. 13 (τῆς προθέσεως), Heb. iv. 14; vi. 18 (ὁμολογίας, 
ἐλπίδος), and likewise in the proper signification to lay hold of, to touch 
viz. τῆς χειρός with Gen. of person following and dependent on this, 
Matt. ix. 25; Luke viii. 54 (Mark ix. 27 Lchm. ['Tdf. Treg.]). But 
the combination current in later writers τινὰ τῆς χειρός Occurs only in 
Mark ix. 27 Tdf. [eds. 2,7; Grsb.], cf. i. 31; analogous to this is 


πιάζειν, Acts ili. 7 πιάσας αὐτὸν τῆς δεξιᾶς χειρός. 


Β. 8182, N. 12; H. $568; C. §487d.; D. p. 482; J. § 486 ὁ. 

The use of a substantive in the Genitive as a peri- 49 
phrasis for an Adjective, which is mentioned as a poetic 
peculiarity among the Greeks, is found not infrequently in 141 
the N. T.; at any rate, there are numerous genitives that can 
hardly be reproduced by us otherwise than by means of their 
corresponding adjectives. In this peculiarity the influence of 
the genius of the Oriental tongues is unmistakable, for they 
were especially addicted to this more poetic mode of expression. 
See respecting the Hebrew, Gesen. Lehrg. p. 644 [Gr. § 104]. 


The following may serve as examples: Luke xvi. 8 ὃ οἰκονόμος τῆς 
ἀδικίας the unjust steward, xviii. 6 6 κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας the unjust judge, 
iv. 22 λόγοι THs χάριτος gracious words, Rom. i. 26 πάθη ἀτιμίας dis- 
honoring passions, xii. 20 ἄνθρακες πυρός, Heb. xii. 15 ῥίζα πικρίας 
(after the Alex. reading of Deut. xxix. 18), Matt. xxiv. 31 pera 
σάλπιγγος φωνῆς μεγάλης with a loud-sounding trumpet (not, with the 
loud sound of a trumpet, see ὃ 147, 31 p. 343; cf. τρία μυστήρια. κραυγῆς 
the three loudly-proclaimed mysteries, Ign. ad Eph. 19). 

Under this head belong in particular the numerous phrases formed 
by means of the substantive vioé or τέκνα followed by the Gen. of 


an abstract (cf. the Heb. “ja and myonvinx, and the like; see Gesen. 
21 


162 THE GENITIVE WITH εἶναι (γίνεσθαι). [§ 132 


Lex. under 42) e.g. τέκνα φωτός, κατάρας, ὑπακοῆς, viol ἀπειθείας, φωτός, 
ἡμέρας, νυκτός, σκότους, ὃ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, etc., 1 Thess. v. 5; 2 Pet. 
ii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 14, ete. 

Yet on the whole this use of the Genitive is by no means so general 
as to warrant the laying down of a special rule— (the Hebrew 
Genitive of material, for example, is even in the Sept. regularly 
rendered by adjectives, as χρυσοῦς, ξύλινος, ὀστράκινος, λίθινος, ete., 
sometimes by ἐκ as in Rev. xviii. 12 but with an adj. subjoined), and 
many of the cases otherwise referred to this head, in particular those 
in which the Gen. is more closely defined by an attributive (e.g. a 
pronoun) and the expression thus loses its general character, are in 
translation more suitably reproduced literally. Hence in Col. i. 13 
vids τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ deWette translates Son of his love (Luther [so 
A.V.] his beloved Son), Heb. i. 3 ῥῆμα τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ the word of 
his power, Acts v. 20 τὰ ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης the words of this life, 
cf. xili. 26; Rom. vii. 24, ete. On the other hand, those phrases 
(especially Pauline) in which the governing substantive also is an 
abstract idea are of a general rhetorical nature; as, 2 Cor. iv. 7 
ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως (equiv. to ὑπερβάλλουσα δύναμις), Rom. vi. 4 
καινότης ζωῆς, ἀδηλότης, βάθος πλούτου, ete. 

ΒΈΜΑΚΚ. Quite in accordance with the exposition given in 2 p. 
156, qualitative limitations are often expressed by κατὰ with the 
Acc. instead of by the Gen., as 2 Cor. vii. 10 ἡ κατὰ θεὸν λύπη godly 
sorrow, Rom. xi. 21 of κατὰ φύσιν κλάδοι the natural branches, ix. 11 
ἡ kar ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις (see Mey.); also without the article, καθ᾽ 
ὑπερβολὴν ὅδόν (see ὃ 125,11 p. 96). But they are seldom expressed 
by xara with the Genitive (see § 147, 20 p. 334). 


THe GENITIVE WITH εἶναι (γίνεσθαι). 
B. § 182, N. 18; H. § 572; C. §§ 421 sq. 437; Ὁ. p. 4788q.; J. $518. 
ii Although the N.T. use of the Genitive with εἶναι arose 
142 from common classic usage, and agrees in general with that 
of Greek authors, yet the subject is so important that it seems 
expedient to review that usage once more here in its special 
application by the N. T. writers. 


In an examination of it we must first of all set aside those passages 
in which, viewed formally, a substantive found in the same sentence 
is to be repeated, although as respects sense they may belong to one 
of the classes given below; as, Luke xx. 38 θεὸς οὐκ ἔστιν (86. θεὸς) 
νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων, 1 Cor. xiv. 88 οὐκ ἔστιν ἀκαταστασίας 6 θεὸς, ἀλλὰ 
εἰρήνης, 2 Cor. ii. ὃ ἡ ἐμὴ χαρὰ πάντων ὑμῶν (sc. χαρά) ἐστιν, 1 Pet. iii. 8 
ὧν (sc. κόσμος) ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ... κόσμος, 1 Thess. v. 5, 8, ete, 


§ 132.] THE GENITIVE AFTER VERBS. 163 


But in Jas. v. 12 ὑμῶν depends immediately on τὸ vai, and 7rw is the 


copula. 
I. If the limiting Genitive with εἶναι is personal, the phrase 
signifies, a) most commonly property, possession — as well external 


or proper, Luke iv. 7 ἔσται σοῦ πᾶσα, John xix. 24 λάχωμεν περὶ αὐτοῦ, 
τίνος ἔσται, Luke xx. 14 ἵνα ἡμῶν γένηται ἣ κληρονομία, Mark xii. 7 ; 
Matt. v.3; xxii. 28; Luke xx. 33; John x. 12; Acts xxi.11; 1 Cor. 
iii. 21;—as also tropically that of ideal connection and dependence, 
as θεοῦ εἶναι, Χριστοῦ εἶναι Mark ix. 41 ;- Acts xxvii. 23; Rom. viii. 9; 
xiv. 8; 2 Cor. x. 7; 2 Tim. ii. 19 (πνεύματος Luke ix. 55 Grsb.), 
Παύλου ... ᾿Απολλώ 1 Cor. i. 12, οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν vi. 19. Analogous 
in structure to these examples is the elliptical phrase τῆς 6800 εἶναι 
80. κυρίου or σωτηρίας Acts ix. 2;1 also b) duty or right, power, 
Acts i. 7 οὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστιν γνῶναι χρόνους (cf. Matt. xx. 23), Rom. ix. 16 
ov τοῦ θέλοντος ... , ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεῶντος θεοῦ sc. ἐστίν, Heb. v. 14 τελείων 
ἐστὶν ἣ στερεὰ τροφή ; and 6) pure causality, 2 Cor. iv.7 ἵνα ἡ 
ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ἦ TOD θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ὑμῶν. But 

II. If the limiting Genitive is a thing, it is to be taken in a qual- 
itative sense; and it may then denote, either a) a permanent 
quality —a use which in ordinary Greek prose is as rare (see B. 
Ρ. 835) as the similar use spoken of in the preceding paragraph 
(10 p. 161), as Heb. xii. 11 πᾶσα παιδεία οὐ δοκεῖ χαρᾶς εἶναι ἀλλὰ 
λύπης, X. 89 οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς εἰς ἀπώλειαν, ἀλλὰ πίστεως, 2 Pet. i. 20 
πᾶσα προφητεία ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται (is of such a nature that, etc.) ; 
or Ὁ) one that is transient, as in Greek, ἦν ἐτῶν δώδεκα Mark v. 42; 
Acts iv. 22, dre ἐγένετο ἐτῶν δώδεκα Luke ii. 42. 

Remark. Apparently this last idiom underlies the specifications of 
size in Rey. xxi. 16 sq. ἐμέτρησεν τὸ τεῖχος αὐτῆς ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα 
τεσσάρων πηχῶν, and still more anomalously ἐμέτρησεν τὴν πόλιν τῷ 
καλάμῳ ἐπὶ σταδίους δώδεκα χιλιάδων sc. σταδίων ; as though they arose 
from the simple statements τὸ τεῖχος ἦν ἑκατὸν τεσσ. τεσσ. πηχῶν, ἡ πόλις 
ἦν δώδεκα χιλιάδων. 





B. § 182, 10a); H. 8 575; C. § 414; Ὁ. p. 468; J. 8 689. 
The extension of the causal Genitive with words of plenty, 12 
being full, by means of the prepositions ἐκ and ἀπό is frequent in 
the N. T.; and that, too, not only with Pass. and Neut. verbs like 143 
χορτασθῆναι, πληρωθῆναι, γέμειν (cf. ὃ 147 under ἀπό p. 323, and ἐκ 
p. 327), as Matt. xxiii. 25 (cf. vs. 27) Tdf. [cod. Sin.], John xii. 3; 


Luke xvi. 21; Rev. xix. 21, but also after the transitive γεμίσαι, 


1 Quite similar is the use of ὄνομα absolutely, with the obvious ellipsis of κυρίου, 
as Acts vy. 41; in Jas v. 14 also cod. Vat. omits τοῦ κυρίου (certainly not by 
accident). 


13 


15 


164 THE GENITIVE AFTER VERBS. [§ 182 


Luke xv. 16 ἐπεθύμει γεμίσαι τὴν κοιλίαν ἀπὸ τῶν κερατίων. More 
in accordance with our usage, and yet not unknown to the Greeks 
also, is the construction of these words with the (instrumental) Dative, 
Rom. i. 29; 2 Cor. vii. 4, to which Dative according to N. T. usage 
(§ 133, 17 p. 181) ἐν is frequently added, particularly with περισσεύειν ; 
see Wahl. 

The Impersonals δεῖ and χρή (8 131, 3 p. 147) are no longer 
construed with nouns. The place of these verbs in the sense of to 
need is supplied by personal constructions, e.g. with χρήζειν, χρείαν ἔχειν 
(cf. § 140, 3 note p. 259), προσδεῖσθαι with the Gen.; see also ὑστερεῖν 
in 22 p. 169. Δεῖσθαι which only occurs in the sense of to ask for, 
entreat, is likewise accompanied uniformly by the Gen. of the person, 
but takes the thing in the Acc. (2 Cor. viii. 4; x. 2). 

Remark. The Accusative (of a neuter word) with γέμειν, Rev 
xvii. 3, and in close proximity to another word in the Genitive (vs. 4) 
is most simply explained by the analogy of the Accusative after Pas- 
sives, as πληροῦσθαι ὃ 134, 7 p. 189. 


B. § 182, 10c); H. $578; C. 8.481; Ὁ. p. 4788q.; J. $§ 519. 520. 

The prepositions used to characterize more precisely the Genitive 
with verbs of buying and selling are ἐκ Matt. xxvii. 7 (whose 
force is apparent from the construction in i. 18) and ἀντί Heb. xii. 16. 
Peculiar is the phrase ἀγοράζειν τιμῆς in the pregnant signification 
‘dearly bought’ 1 Cor. vi. 20; vii. 23, and the Gen. dnvapiov without 
a verb Rey. vi. 6; also the expressions συμῴφωνεῖν δηναρίου and ἐκ 
δηναρίου Matt. xx. 2, 13, as it were: make a contract for a denarius. 


B. § 182, 10 ἃ); H. $576; C. § 482 Ὁ. and c.; D. p. 4848q.; J. $§ 493. 515, Obs. 
Πειράζειν to try, put to the test; commonly in a bad sense, in 
later writers and in the N. T. is wholly transitive; πειρᾶσθαι does 
not occur connected with a noun. Mvypovevecy is construed as 
well with the Gen. as with the Acc., without any sensible difference 
of signification ; see Wahl. ‘The Acc. with the Middle ἀναμιμνήσκεσθαι 
(2 Cor. vii. 15) is explained by § 135, 5 p. 198. 


B. $182, 10 6); H. §§ 576.577; C. § 482 ἃ.; J. § 496. 

To verbs signifying to care for, be anxious, must be added from the 
N. T. the newly formed word σπλαγχνίζεσθαι to have compassion 
from τὰ σπλάγχνα (1.4. 072M Prov. xii. 10) ; it is construed sometimes 
absolutely, sometimes with the Gen. (Matt. xviii. 27) or περὶ with 
the Gen. (ix. 36), but commonly with ἐπί and the Dat. or Acc. 
Μέλει μοι occurs with the Gen. only in 1 Cor. ix. 9, elsewhere 
always with περί. On the construction of μεριμνᾷν and other similar 
verbs, as μακροθυμεῖν, θαυμάζειν (which is no longer ever construed 


§ 132.] THE GENITIVE AFTER VERBS: 165° 


with the Gen.) see under verbs of emotion ὃ 133, 23 p.185 and 
25 p. 186. On the other hand, φείδεσθαι and (in accordance 
- with their composition) καταγελᾷν and καταφρονεῖν are con- 
strued only with the simple Genitive whether of the person or of the 
thing. In 1 Tim. iv. 12 neither the sense nor usage (cf. 9 p. 160 and 
17 note p. 167) prevents our making both Genitives depend 
immediately on καταφρονεῖν. 

Remark In Gal. v. 26, where with φθονεῖν both the Dative 
and the Accusative (ἀλλήλους) have manuscript authority, in the 
absence of other passages in support of the Acc. of the person the 
reading ἀλλήλοις [so Sin.] deserves the preference. 


B. $182, 10g) and N. 16,17; H. §577b.; C. ὃ 4310. d.; D. Ρ. 419; J. 8 501. 144 

To verbs of accusing and the like, belongs καταμαρτυρεῖν 16 
followed by the Gen.: Matt. xxvi. 62, etc. Moreover κατη- 
yopetv, with the Gen. of the person, has once also κατὰ 
repeated from the verb (Luke xxiii. 14), and once contrary to 
usage (and hence not without var.[Sin. too]) the person in the 
Ace. Rey. xii. 10; the thing it takes, as commonly, in the Acc. 
Καταδικάξειν is used with the Acc. of the person Matt. 
xii. 7; Jas. v. 6, κατωκρίνειν (like κρίνειν) also always 
with the Acc. of the person (by metonymy also τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 
Rom. viii. 83); but the punishment to which the person is 
condemned is put (by the Greeks commonly in the Ace., 
sometimes in the Gen.) in the Dative, because (as is supposed) 
this construction was the prevalent one with the verb ζημιοῦν, 
as θανάτῳ Matt. xx. 18; Mark x. 33 (in this way 2 Pet. ii. 6 
is to be explained), or expressed neriphrastically : ἔνοχον εἶναι 
θανάτου Mark xiv. θά. 

The thing or the offence of which one is accused, etc., never 
stands in the Genitive alone; for whenever it seems to occur thus, it 
is to be explained by the law of Attraction (8 143, 8 sq. p. 285) as an 
Accusative —as in Acts xxiv. 8; xxv. 11; Luke xxiii. 14 (on ἐγκα- 
λεῖσθαι στάσεως see ὃ 133, 9 p. 177),— or the common circumlocutions 
with prepositions appear, especially περί twos, and also ἐπί τινι. Cf. 


Acts xxiii. 6; xxiv. 21 and xxvi. 6. On the phrase ἐκδωκεῖν τι ἔκ 
τινος see ὃ 133, 20 p. 182. 


B. § 182, 10h.; H. § 576; C. § 482; D. p. 469; J. § 485. 

Among the verbs of perception (physical and mental) 1] 
none is more common than ἀκούειν, --- {π6 representative, so 
to speak, of all other similar verbs. The crnstructions of this 


166 THE GENITIVE AFTER VERBS. [8 182 


verb in the N. T. are exceedingly various ; yet they connect 
themselves closely with those preserved in ordinary Greek. 


In the first place, as respects its construction with nouns (on its 
construction with verbs see § 144, 16 p. 301) the person, so far as 
he is the author of the (immediately perceived) sound or speech, 
uniformly stands only in the Genitive, never in the Accusative ; ὦ 
the thing either in the Accusative, so far forth as the speech or 
sound is the natural object of the hearing, or (but only with substan- 

145 tives which denote a sound, etc.) in the Genitive, in so far as by 
metonymy (cf. 16 above, p. 165) instead of the speaking etc. person, 
the thing i.e. the speech, the sound itself, is introduced; as, ἀκούει τῶν 
λόγων αὐτοῦ equiv. to αὐτοῦ λέγοντος. Examples are: Matt. ii. 9 
ἀκούσαντες τοῦ βασιλέως (at the same time with the collateral idea of 
obeying), Mark vi. 20 ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν, Luke ix. 35, etc.; xi. 81 τὴν 
σοφίαν Σολομῶνος, xxiii. 6 TadtAaiay (i.e. the word Galilee; ἀκούειν 
Γαλιλαίας could only mean Galilee, i.e. to hear the Galileans speak), 
Acts vii. 34 (quotn.) ἤκουσα τοῦ στεναγμοῦ αὐτῶν i.e. αὐτῶν στεναζόντων, 
so in John x. 3 τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ, Luke xv. 25 συμφωνίας καὶ χορῶν, etc. 
It is hardly possible to express in translation the difference in signi- 
fication between φωνήν and φωνῆς ἀκούειν, λόγων and λόγους ax., since 
both expressions are used side by side e.g. John v. 25, 28, 87; Acts 
ix. 4,7; Rev. xiv. 2, 18, ete., and as respects the sense, therefore, it 
is a matter of indifference whether we read in Mark xiv. 64 ἠκούσατε 
τὴν βλασφημίαν (Lchm.) or τῆς βλασφημίας (Τα. [Treg. cod. Sin. }), 
in John vii. 40 ἀκούσαντες τῶν λόγων (Lchm. Tdf. [ Treg. cod. Sin. }) 
or τὸν λόγον (Grsb.), only the Genitive as a causal case is more 
forcible than the Object-Acc. 

Frequently both limitations — that of the person and that of the 
thing — are found dependent alike upon the verb. Then a threefold 
construction occurs : 1) the thing is put in the Acce., the person in 
the Gen., as Acts i. 4 τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, ἣν ἠκούσατέ pov, and perhaps 
also such sentences as Matt. vii. 24, 26 ὁ ἀκούων μου τοὺς λόγους, see 
p- 167 note; 2) the thing in the Acc., the person in the Gen. 

_ but with a preposition intervening, as ἐκ, παρά and (contrary to 
ordinary usage) sometimes ἀπό, as Acts x. 22 ἀκοῦσαι ῥήματα παρὰ σοῦ, 
John viii. 40 ἀλήθειαν ἣν ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Cor. xii. 6 Tdf. [eds. 
2,7; ed. 8, Treg. Lchmi. cod. Sin. om. Acc. ] ἀκούει τι ἐξ ἐμοῦ, 1 John i. 5 


1 When sometimes the person alone is found in the Acc. with ἀκούειν, he is not 
the author of the sound, but the object of the hearing, and strictly speaking to 
be regarded always as the beginning of an Infinitive construction (with the Acc.) ;. 
as, Eph. iv. 21 εἴγε αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε etc., not if ye have heard him (personally), but 
if ye have heard him that he is Christ etc., hence briefly if ye have heard or him. See 
similar examples in Greek authors in Ar. Pac. 603, Thesm. 164; Xen. Cyr. 1 
1,4; and cf. my Essay in the Easter programme, Potsdam. 1855, p. 5. 


$ 132.] THE GENITIVE AFTER VERBS. 167 


ἀγγελία, ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ; with this case may be reckoned also 
those sentences where the object (a thing) is periphrastically expressed 
by an entire clause or by περί and the Gen. (Acts ix. 13, etc.) or must 
be supplied e.g. John vi. 45 6 ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν (A 
adds τὴν ἀλήθειαν) ἔρχεται πρός pe, i. 41; 3) both the limiting 
nouns are put in the Genitive; as, John xii. 47 ἐάν τίς μου ἀκούσῃ τῶν 
ῥημάτων, xvilil. 387; Luke vi. 47; Acts xxii. 1 ἀκούσατέ μου τῆς πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς ἀπολογίας. 

With the other verbs of perception, such as πυνθάνεσθαι, μανθάνειν, 
συνιέναι, the object of the perception always stands in the Accusative, 
the person in the Genitive connected by means of a prep., especially 
παρά, (μανθάνειν almost always with ἀπό see $147,5p 324). “AmrrecOau 
to touch uniformly has the Gen., both of the person and of the thing. 

Remark. Acts ix. 1 Σαῦλος ἔτι ἐμπνέων ἀπειλῆς καὶ φόνου is an 
imitation of ὄζειν, πνεῖν μύρων (B. ὃ 182, 10h.), and has the stronger 
signification of breathing, panting. . 


B. § 182, 10 ἢ); H. § 576; C. §482a.; D. p.470; J. 8 587. 

Among verbs signifying to taste, to enjoy, to have an advan- 
tage, γεύεσθαι has commonly the Genitive, yet is also joined as 
transitive to the Accusative, John ii. 9; Heb. vi. 5; κορέννυσθαι, 
χορτάζειν (cf. 12 p. 163), ὀνίνασθαι take the Genitive. On the 
phrase προσελάβοντο τροφῆς (Acts xxvii. 36) see 9 p. 161. 


B. § 182, N. 20; H. $586; C. $511b.; D. p. 8918q.; J. § 781. 
Of the familiar classic breviloquence by which in comparisons the 


1 We may be in doubt whether in this last case we ought not rather to make 
the Gen. of the person depend immediately upon the Gen. of the thing, and in 
this way to reduce the two limitations to a single one, as is indubitably the case in 
such sentences as ἤκουσα τοῦ στεναγμοῦ αὐτῶν, etc. The question, however, comes 
to be a mere dispute about words, since according to both constructions the re- 
sultant sense is the same. Yet since 1) the construction with a double Genitive 
cannot be any more surprising than that with a double Acc. and a double Dat. 
(§ 133, 27 p. 165), and is unquestionably found in Greek usage, e.g. with κατηγορεῖν 
Aesch. Ctes. p. 61 τῶν τεττάρων καιρῶν κατηγορῶ σου, ib. p. 84; Dem. Mid. in., 
with καταγελᾷν Plat. Soph. 239 E. cf. ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι above 9 p. 160 and καταφρονεῖν 
15 p. 165; cf. also the double Gen. with δεῖσθαι, χρήζειν, B. § 132 N.14; C. § 414¢; 
J. §529 Obs. 1; and 2) the personal Genitive in this case so often precedes the 
other substantive, or is even separated from it by a word (although position alone 
would not decide the matter, ef. Luke xiv. 24, etc.),— the grammarian is fully 
authorized to make both the limiting nouns in the above passages depend on 
ἀκούειν. From the circumstance, perhaps not accidental, that the personal lim- 
itation always precedes the other substantive if ἀκούειν also stands before it, and 
on the other hand, if ἀκούειν follows it the personal adjunct also is placed after it 
(John x. 16, 27; Heb. iii. 7, 15, etc.), we may infer at least a close connection 
between the personal Genitive and the verbal idea. 


146 


18 


19 


168 THE GENITIVE OF COMPARISON. [§. 132. 


whole of the object compared is substituted for a part, or a single 
substantive takes the place of an entire clause (see the examples in 
the grammars and cf. Herm. ad Vig. no. 55.and § 133, 10 p. 177 below), 
the N. T. exhibits a few indubitable instances: Matt. v. 20 ἐὰν μὴ 
περισσεύσῃ 7 δικαιοσύνη ὑμῶν πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων instead of τῆς 
δικαιοσύνης τῶν γραμ.. John v. 86 Tdf. [cod. Sin.] ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν 
μείζω τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου for τῆς τοῦ Ἰωάννου οΥ ἢ ὁ Ἰωάννης ἔχε. But 1 Cor. 
i. 25 does not belong here (see Meyer). 


B. § 182, N. 21; H. §660d.; C. § 511 ο.; Ὁ. p. 898; J. ὃ 780, Obs. 1. 

21 Examples of the omission of ἤ without change of case 
(as in Latin) in connection with the idea more (plus) are the 
following: Matt. xxvi. 53 παραστήσει μοι πλείω δώδεκα Neye@vas 
ἀγγέλων (where ἤ is an explanatory addition); and in like 
manner according to later usage in connection with ἐπάνω, 
1 Cor. xv. 6 ὥφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς. In Acts xxiii. 
18, 21; xxiv. 11; xxv. 6 (iv. 22) the case is not evident; 
yet these passages, beyond all doubt, must be so construed, 
and in Mark xiv. 5 the Genitive is required on other grounds 
also. Rarely ἤ is expressed: Luke ix. 13. 

Remark. That the Gen. of comparison can be used with Positives 
also if they include the idea of a comparative (B, ὃ 132, N. 24) is 
illustrated in the N. T. by περισσός and the adverb ὕπερεκπε- 
ρισσοῦ, as Matt. v. 37; Eph. iii. 20. Cf. with this the similar 
construction with παρά ὃ 147, 27 p. 389, On the Gen. of com- 
parison with the Superlative, see § 123, 14 p. 84. 


B. § 182,12; H. § 581; C. §406sq.; Ὁ. p. 476; J. § 504sq. 
22 Among the verbs which contain the idea of a comparison, 
147 πλεονεκτεῖν, according to the usage of later writers (see 
Pape’s Lex.),is connected as a simple transitive only with the 
Accusative, after the analogy of many other verbs; see Wahl. 
Hence the Passive πλεονεκτεῖσθαι (2 Cor. ii. 11), as also in 
the earlier writers (Xen., Dem.) according to B. § 134, 5. 
Respecting διαφέρειν see above, 5 p. 158; respecting ἐλαττοῦν, 
-ova Gat, see under παρά ὃ 147, 27 p. 339. 
The Dative with 477 dopac in 2 Pet. ii. 19 ᾧ τις ἥττηται, 
τούτῳ Kal δεδούλωται, is an instrumental Dat.; but it may also 
be regarded as the Dat. of the Person with a Passive (§ 134, 
2 p. 187), since ἡττάω in later writers (Polyb., Diod.) has 
become a pure transitive, like δουλόω. 


§ 132.] THE GENITIVE OF COMPARISON. 169 


ὑστερεῖν, - εἶσ θαι, commonly construed with the Genitive, occurs 
once also with ἀπό, see ὃ 147, 2 p. 822. In the sense cf the Latin 
desum alicut it is joined to the Dative in the Sept. (Neh. ix. 21; Eccl. 
vi. 2), once also to the Acc. in the sense of the impersonal δεῖ (Ps. 
‘xxii. 1 οὐδέν pe ὑστερήσει), and this is the reading also of some of the 
oldest mss. [Sin. also] in Mark x. 21 (ἕν σε torepet), which reading 
Tdf. has adopted instead of the former oor; on the Acc. of the thing 
(ἕν, ri) see ὃ 131, 10 p. 152. ὑπερέχειν is construed with the 
Gen. in Phil. ii. 8, with the Acc. in iv. 7. περισσεύειν by its 
chief signification, to have plenty, abundare, (e.g. ἄρτων, ἐν ἐλπίδι) 
belongs to no. 12 above p. 163. The derived signification to surpass, 
superare, it acquires, strictly speaking, only by the addition of μᾶλλον 
(Phil. i. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 1,10), yet it is uniformly used absolutely 
i.e. without the Gen. of the object surpassed (respecting Matt. v. 20 
see 20 above, p. 168), for which the periphrasis of παρά with the Acc. 
is used in Eccl. iii. 19, ὑπέρ in 1 Mace. iii. 30. Of the verbs of 
ruling βασιλεύειν is joined most frequently to ἐπί with the Acc., 
Rom. v. 14, ete., more rarely to ἐπὶ with the Gen. Rev. v. 10; Mait. 
ii. 22 Tdf. [eds. 2,7; ed. 8 om. prep. with Lchm.]. On the other hand, 
ἄρχειν and ἡγεμονεύειν always have the Genitive (as has cod. 
B also [so Sin.] with βασιλεύειν in Matt. ii. 22), and likewise 
ἡγεῖσθαι, but only with 6 ἡγούμενος used substantively. Further, 
from the N. T. belong here also κυριεύειν, καταδυναστεύειν, ἀνθυπατεύειν 
(Acts xviii. 12 Tdf. [eds. 2,7; but ed. 8 ἀνθυπάτου ὄντος, with Lchm. 
‘Treg. cod. Sin. etc.], atOevreiv, —all with the Genitive. ἄρχεσθαι 
in the sense of to begin is construed only with ἀπό. 


B. $182; N. 26; H. of. $509; C. of. 8 444; D. p. 888; J. § 4868. 

Since every adjective, participle, verbal adjective, can be 
rendered a substantive by its position in the sentence (not 
merely by the article), it can in such» circumstances also be 
construed with the Genitive instead of the constructions, 
casal (or adverbial), which otherwise properly belong to it. 


Examples are frequent: ὃ ἀγαπητός μου in the address ἀγαπητοί μου 
(1 Cor. x. 14 etc.), ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν (Matt. xi. 11; Luke vii. 28), 
‘ol εὐλογημένοι τοῦ πατρός pov (Matt. xxv. 34), τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ ... τὸ ὑμῶν 
αὐτῶν σύμφορον (1 Cor. vii. 8ὅ etc.), ἄνομος and ἔννομος θεοῦ (1 Cor. 
"ix. 21), κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom. i. 6), διδακτοὶ θεοῦ (John vi. 45), 
σύμμορφοι τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ (Rom. viii. 29), and likewise also σύμφυτοι 
τῆς ἀναστάσεως Rom. vi. 5 (see deWette). Cf. with these the ex- 
pression θεοῦ (not θεῷ) ὑποτασσόμενοι in Ign. ad Eph. 5. Hence ὃ 
δέσμιος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Eph. iii. 1 ete.) in brief for, ‘a prisoner for the 
cause of Christ (cf. iv. 1). 
22 


24 


170 . THE GENITIVE OF TIME AND PLACE. [§ 132. 


B. $182, N. 27; H. §687e. ὃ 584b.; C. $446b.; D. p.478; J. § 507 8a. 
But even when the parts of speech just mentioned retain 


148 their adjectival nature (in connection with substantives there- 


fore) they can be construed with the Genitive so far forth as 
it subjoins the necessary complement of the idea of quality 
incompletely expressed in the adjective, etc. 

1 Cor. ii. 18 οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις, GAN ἐν 
διδακτοῖς πνεύματος, 2 Pet. ii. 14 καρδία γεγυμνασμένη πλεονεξίας ([80 
cod. Sin.], Ree. -ais), Jas. i. 13 θεὸς ἀπείραστος κακῶν not inexperienced 
(that would be ἄπειρος) in evil, but untempted by evil, — agreeably to 
the parallelism of the passage and the derivation from the N..T. 
πειράζειν Accordingly ἔνοχος is construed either (as commonly) 
with the Dative, Matt. v. 21, 22,2 or with the Genitive, Matt. xxvi. 
66, etc. (so also Herm. Mand. 2); in the same way we have ἐγγὺς 
τινί (for which also ἐπί with the Dat. is used) and τινός. But whether 
ὅμοιος was also connected in this way with the Genitive (like stmilis 
in Latin) is doubtful, and rests only on John viii. 55 [so cod. Sin.] 
where Lchm. [so Treg.] has given the preference to ὑμῖν. In Heb. 
iil. 12 καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας, the Gen. is rather to be regarded as 
dependent on the whole expression καρδία πονηρά. 


B. § 1382, N. 28; cf. Ὁ. p. 483sq.; J. ὃ 540, Obs. 

To the examples (given in B. note) of a free use of the Genitive with 
verbs (λοῦσαι ποταμοῖο, etc.) may be added from the N. T.: βάπτειν τὸ 
ἄκρον τοῦ δακτύλου ὕδατος Luke xvi. 24, cf. Arat. 650, 858, 951 (Lev. 
xiv. 16), συμφωνεῖν Syvapiov (see above 13 p. 164). 


B. § 182, 14; H. $$ 590, 591; C. 8 488; D. § 452; J. 8 522, 628. 
a) Examples of the Genitive in general statements of Time are 
χειμῶνος, νυκτός (especially in connection with ἡμέρα : νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας 
and the reverse), μεσονυκτίου, ἀλεκτοροφωνίας (Mark xiii: 35), τοῦ λοιποῦ 


1 Similar is the Genitive καρδίας in Acts vii. 51 with ἀπερίτμητοι in cod. Vat. 
after the analogy of other verbals compounded with a privative (Grams. as above). 
But the adjunct καὶ τοῖς ὡσίν immediately following agrees badly with this Genitive. 
The supposition is much more probable that the Vat. reading arose merely by = 
clerical error from the Dat. Plur. καρδίαις, and accordingly this very old and 
well-attested [by cod. Sin. also] reading deserves decidedly the preference over the 
other (τῇ καρδίᾳ Rec.). On ἄσπιλος, ἀθῷος ἀπό see above, 5 p. 158. 

* The construction with eis which also occurs in this passage (ἔνοχος εἰς τὴν 
γέενναν) hardly rests on a usage of the word ἔνοχος, nor is a verbal idea (βληθῆναι 
after v. 29, 30; xviii. 9, etc.) to be supplied here outright. It is rather—agreeably 
to the character of the Biblical Greck — a vivid, concrete, cireumlocution for 
the Dative (ὁ 133, 2. 3 p. 172), called out by the concrete term yéevva, in an- 
tithesis to the preceding abstract term κρίσει and the word συνεδρίῳ used in a 
similar sense. . 


§ 133.] THE DATIVE. 171 


(Gal. vi.17). But it is never used in definite specificatio..s; hence in 
Matt. xxiv. 20) quite regularly μὴ γένηται ἣ φυγὴ ὑμῶν χειμῶνος μηδὲ 
σαβ βάτῳ, and likewise idiomatically ὀψὲ ... δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου (see 7 
above, Rem. p. 159). (The Accusative τὸ μὲν σάββατον Luke xxiii. 
06 is used according to ὃ 131, 11 p. 152.) In connection with adjec- 
tives or participles the above described specifications of time pass 
over into the Gen. absol.; as, μέσης νυκτός, ... ἡμέρας Matt. xxv. 6; 
Acts xxvi. 13; ὄρθρου βαθέως Luke xxiv. 1 ete. 

b) The Genitive in general specifications of Place is more 149 
rare, —as in the classics. Here only two examples from Luke can 
be adduced: v. 19 μὴ εὑρόντες ποίας (sc. ὁδοῦ) εἰσενέγκωσιν αὐτόν, and 
xix. 4 ἐκείνης ἤμελλεν διέρχεσθαι. 

In both the preceding cases (a. and b.) expressions with prepositions 
most commonly appear, even as the received text adds διά in both the 
passages just quoted. 


B. § 182, N. 80; H. §509B.; C. § 438; D. ὃ 899 β.; J. $436, 1b. 

The word ἄδης is found construed in Greek fashion (εἰς ᾧδου) but 27 
once, Acts ii. 81 Lchm. [Treg.], although even here the important 
authority of codd. Vat. and Sin. (followed by Tdf.) opposes this con- 
struction. Elsewhere the word has directly the signification under- 
world, hell, and is construed accordingly; thus εἰς ἄδην Acts ii. 27 
(quotn.), ἐν τῷ adn Luke xvi. 23; πύλαι, κλεῖς gdov, etc. Hence that 
even in the phrase ἕως ἄδου (Matt. xi. 23; Luke x. 15) it is not to be 
taken otherwise is plain. 

Remark. Very extraordinary for the language of the N. T. would 
be the ellipsis — after the analogy of the above εἰς gdov—of yf in 
Heb. xi. 26 Lehm. τῶν ἐν Αἰγύπτου θησαυρῶν, and probably hardly 
to be regarded as anything more than a clerical error of cod. A, (cod. 
Clarom. [Sin. also] omits év, and the Vulg. translates Aegyptiorum.) 


Tue Dative. 
B. § 183; H. § 594; C. § 448; Ὁ. § 455; J. 8 586. 

As in the general Grammar, we take as the basis of our 
treatment of the Dative the two leading distinctions in the 
same, viz. the Dative of the Person or of the Object af- 
fected (the Dative proper), and the Dative of the Thing 
(the Ablative). 


. A. Dative or THe Prrson or OF THE OBJECT AFFECTED. 

In this use it coincider in general with the Dative of other | 
languages, and the grammarian, therefore, can conveniently 
pass over all those instances which need no explanation, such 
as δοῦναι, παραδοῦναι, λέγειν τινί, πείθεσθαι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, ἀκολου- 


172 THE DATIVE. [§ 133. 


θεῖν τινι etc., and likewise those in which we, to be sure, 
generally avail ourselves of prepositions, yet the identity of 
which with the examples just given is at once obvious; as, 
ἀπολογεῖσθαί τινι to defend oneself before any one Acts xix. 
33 etc., προθυμίαν, ἣν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καυχῶμαι Μακεδόσιν to the 
Macedonians 2 Cor. ix. 2, ψεύσασθαι ἀνθρώποις, τῷ θεῷ Acts 
v. 4, προσαναλῶσαι τὸν βίον ἰατροῖς on physicians Luke viii. 48, 
λαλεῖν τινι to talk to [Germ. zu] one. 

2 As everywhere, so especially in the N. T., for the Dative of 

150 the Person various periphrases with prepositions are 
substituted: the language bringing to view the manifold in- 
ternal and ideal significations of the Case by the more concrete 
terms of relationship, viz. the prepositions, (in English by “ to,’ 
‘for,’ ‘ towards,’ etc.). Inasmuch as here also the grammarian 
must proceed upon the views set forth ὃ 130, 1 p. 141 and 
§ 132, 2 p. 156, he must restrict himself to exhibiting this 
general usage in those examples which are peculiarly charac- 
teristic of the N. T. 

3 The most common circumlocutions which are used 
instead of, or in the sense of, the Dative of the object 
affected, are formed by means of the prepositions eis (of 
which a few examples have been already given, § 131, 6 p. 149 
and ὃ 132, 24 p. 170 note), πρός with the Acc. (as in λέγειν 
τινί and πρός twa), μετά with the Gen. (as in λαλεῖν τινί 
and μετά τινος John iv. 26, 27) σύν more rarely ἐν and ἐπί 
with the Dat. — as will appear from the contents of this entire 
section. 


More peculiar are the periphrases by means of the prepositions 
ὀπίσω, ἔμπροσθεν, and the Hebraistic ἐνώπιον (7253). Thus we often 
find é67 iow instead of the Dative (or the more classic μετά Rev. vi. 8 ; 
xiv. 13) with ἀκολουθεῖν (see Wahl), with which compare Luke xix. 14 
ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ, Acts xx. 30 ἀποσπᾷν twa ὀπίσω 
αὐτῶν (after them i.e. to attract to themselves) and 22 below, p. 184: 
ἔμπροσθεν and ἐνώπιον (κατενώπιον) : Matt. v.16 (τὸ φῶς) λαμψάτω 
ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, χὶ. 26 οὕτως ἐγένετο εὐδοκία ἔμπροσθέν σου, 
XViii. 14 οὐκ ἔστιν θέλημα ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός pov, x. 32, 33; xi. 10; 
xxiii. 14, etc., προσκυνεῖν (§ 191, 4 p. 147) ἐνώπιόν τινος Luke iv. 7; 
Rey. xv. 4 (and so the Sept. after the Hebrew: Ps. Ixxxv. 9; Isa. 
Ixvi. 23); further Luke viii. 47 ἀπήγγειλαν" ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, 
xv. 10 γίνεται χαρὰ ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων, xxiv. 11 ἐφάνησαν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν 


(likewise φανερωθῆναι and the adj. ἀφανής, 2 Cor. vii. 12; Heb. iv. 1:3). 


§133.] CONSTRUCTION OF πιστεύειν. 173 


Acts vi. 5 ἤρεσεν 6 λόγος ἐνώπιον τοῦ πλήθους ---- Δῃηἃ in accordance 
with this also the verbals ἀρεστός, εὐάρεστος, ἀπόδεκτος, ἐνώπιόν τινος 
1 John iii. 22; Heb. xiii. 21 ete., ἄμωμος, ἀνέγκλητος κατενώπιόν τινος 
Eph. i. 4; Col. i. 22 (cf. 14 below, p. 179, and § 134, 3 p. 188) 
Corresponding to καυχᾶσθαι τινί above (1 p. 172) we have καυχᾶσθαι 
ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ 1 Cor. i. 29, to θύρας μοι ἀνεῳγμένης (2 Cor. ii. 12), 
θύραν ἐνώπιόν σου dvewyp. Rey. iii. 8, to the common ὁμολογεῖν τινί 
the construction with ἔμπροσθεν (7 p. 176) and with ἐνώπιον Rev. iii. 
5, etc. 

In all the above passages the Dative might be used just as well, but 
the adverbial periphrasis is more lively, pictorial, and suited to the 
Oriental way of looking at things; hence it is added as a sort of com- 
plement even to a preceding Dative, as Luke i. 75 λατρεύειν αὐτῷ ... 
ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ. 

REMARK. ἁμαρτάνειν also, which in the N. T. retains only the 
secondary signification to fail towards one (to sin), ought strictly to 
have been joined to the Dative of the person, as indeed is frequently 
the case in the Sept. (Judg. xi. 27; 2 Chron. xix. 10, etc.); yet 
everywhere the periphrasis with εἰς appears instead (as frequently 
also even in classic writers, see Pape), Matt. xviii. 21 etc. So in the 
O. T. also, where too ἐναντίον, ἔναντι are connected with ἁμαρτάνειν. 


The constructions, in part very diversified, of the following 154 
verbs, πιστεύειν, πεποιθέναι, ἐλπίζειν, ὁμολογεῖν, 4 
deserve a special and comprehensive exposition, since these 
words as respects their signification also were used often in a 
decidedly different sense after the introduction of the new 
religion from that which they anciently bore. 


Πιστεύειν. Passing over all those passages where it is used in 
the ordinary sense (give credit to, put faith im) and construed as 
usual, we notice its appearance 

1) Absolutely, equivalent to πίστιν ἔχειν (Mark ix. 42 Tdf. [cod. 
Sin.]) i.e. trustfully (μὴ διακριθέντα, cf. Matt. xxi. 21, 22; Jas. i. 6) to 
cleave to the new dispensation of grace with faith in God the Redeemer : 
Mark xvi. 16; Luke viii. 12, 50; John iv. 53, etc.; also in the Passive, 
Rom. x. 10. 

2) With the Dative, and that a) of the Person, which is 
indeed the common construction, but in the majority of cases is applied 
also to this new idea; as, Μωυσεῖ John v. 46, Ἰωάννῃ Matt. xxi. 26, 
82; Mark xi. 31 etc., τῷ Ἰησοῦ Matt. xxvii. 42 Lchm.; John v. 46; 
viii. 31 etc., τῷ πέμψαντί pe John v. 24, τῷ κυρίῳ Acts v. 14; xviii. 8, 
τῷ θεῷ xvi. 34; Rom. iv. 3 (quotn.); Tit. iii. 8 etc. The gradual 
transition into the above special N. T. signification is to be explained 


174 CONSTRUCTION OF πιστεύειν. [§ 133. 


by the common ellipsis of a clause, as ὅτι εἰμὶ, εἶ, ἐστὶν Χριστός ete. 
b) Instead of the Dative of the Person who is believed, frequently 
by metonymy an abstract in the Dative is substituted, as τῇ γραφῇ 
καὶ τῷ λόγῳ John ii. 22, γράμμασιν, ῥήμασιν v. 47, τοῖς γεγραμμένοις 
Acts xxiv. 14, τοῖς ἔργοις (μου) John x. 38, ἀκοῇ xii. 88 (quotn.), 
ἀληθείᾳ 2 Thess. ii. 12, ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ 1 John iii. 28. 

3) Exclusively pertaining to the new signification of the 
word is its construction — very frequent, particularly in John— 
with eis τινα to believe on (in) any one, and here again a) with 
the Acc. of the Person: Matt. xviii. 6; Mark ix. 42 Lchm.; 
John ii. 11; iii. 16,18 ete.; Acts x. 48 etc.; Rom. x. 14; Gal. ii. 16; 
Phil. i. 29; 1 Pet. i. 8—everywhere in reference to God or the 
person of Christ; and alternating with the Dative 1 John v. 10; 
b) by metonymy with the Acc. of an abstract— again in John, 
especially εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Ἰησοῦ i. 12; ii. 23; iii. 18; 1 John v. 13, also 
εἰς τὸ φῶς John xii. 36, εἰς τὴν μαρτυρίαν 1 John v.10. That in this con- 
struction the ellipsis of a clause is, logically considered, no longer 
demanded, is obvious ; hence the word in its new sense, when connected 
with nouns, gradually settled upon this construction. 

4) Far more rare is the construction ἐπί τινα, instead of that 
with εἰς, and in the same sense. Thus ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον Acts ix. 42; xi. 
17; xvi. 31, cf. xxii. 19; Rom. iv. 5,24. This use is uncertain in 
the gospels: Matt. xxvii. 42 (cod. B [x Tdf. Treg.]), John iii. 15 Lehm. 

5) The construction with ἐπί and the Dative of the Person 
seems to belong more to the O. T.; hence in the quotation from 
Isaiah (xxviii. 16 Alex.) in Rom. ix. 383; x.11; 1 Pet. ii. 6, cf. 1 Tim. 
i. 16. Matt. xxvii. 42 Tdf [ed. 7] is doubtful. The construction 
with ἐπί and the Dative of the Thing (Luke xxiv. 25; Rom. iv. 
18) rests upon the Greek use of the preposition ἐπί with the Dat., 
see § 147, 24 p. 336. . 

6) The rarest construction is with the preposition év,—unques- 
tionably supported only in Mark i. 15, and there with the Dat. of the 
thing: ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. Respecting its force (whether to believe in 
..., trust in..., believe through, by virtue of, the gospel) inter- 

{52 preters differ ; and it is the more difficult to arrive at anything certain 
on this point, as in the other passage (John iii. 15) the mss. and 
editors also disagree (Lchm. ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν [& εἰς], Tdf. [Treg.] ἐν αὐτῷ). 
The Seventy, in accordance with the Hebr. original (cf. Gesen. under 
vox Hiphil, and Fritzsche on Mark p. 26), employ the construction ἔν 
τινι frequently in the sense ‘to trust in,’ e.g. Jer. xii. 6; Ps. lxxvii. 22; 
1 Sam. xxvii. 12 Alex. 

The (Pauline) formula πιστὸς ἐν κυρίῳ, ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (Eph. i. 1; 
Col. i. 2, etc.) did not originate in the verbal construction, cf. 5 and 
6 p. 175. 


ὃ 133.} CONSTRUCTION OF πεπειθέναι, ἐλπίζειν. 175 


7) The construction with the object-Accusative (of the thing) 
in the sense ‘to believe something, as ἔργον Acts xiii. 41 ([so cod. 
Sin.]; Grsb. ©), πάντα 1 Cor. xiii. 7, ἀγάπην 1 John iv. 16 (hence in 
the Passive: τὸ μαρτύριον ἡμῶν 2 Thess. i. 10, cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16). 
Further, the Acc. of the object with πιστεύειν in the sense of to entrust, 
confide, as αὐτὸν or ἑαυτόν τινι John ii. 24, and the allied construction 
of the Acc. with the Passive (πιστεύομαί τι, see ὃ 134, 7 p. 189) find 
their basis in the ordinary Greek usage. 

Πεποιθέναι to trust admits in the main of the same constructions, 
being joined 1) with the Dative, as in Greek writers, e.g. ἑαυτῷ, 
δεσμοῖς, ὑπακοῇ, 2 Cor.x.7; Phil. 1.14; Philem.21; 2) with εἰς, 
but only once, εἰς ὑμᾶς Gal. v. 10; 3) with ἐπί and the Ace. of 
the Person, Matt. xxvii. 43 Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.]; 2 Cor. ii. 3; 
2 Thess. iii. 4; 4) with ἐπί and the Dative, —and that both of 
the person, Luke xviii. 9; 2 Cor.i.9; Heb. ii. 18 (quotn.), doubtfully 
in Matt. xxvii. 43 (B), and also of the thing, Luke xi. 22 (πανοπλίᾳ), 
Mark x. 24 (χρήμασιν). 

In the phrase πεπ. ἔν rive the expression with ἐν, if a personal 
Dative follows, is more an abverbial adjunct designating the ground 
of the trust; hence it is commonly connected with one of the above 
constructions or with a clause introduced by ὅτι, as Gal. v. 10; 
2 Thess. iii. 4; Phil. ii. 24 (ἐν κυρίῳ), cf. 6 below and 23 p.185. But 
it is otherwise with the Dative of the thing, as πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί Phil. 
iii. 3, 4 (a periphrasis for the Dative above: to trust in the flesh ; cf. 21 
and 22 p. 183). 

Ἐλπίζειν to hope, in the earlier Greek prose uniformly prefers, 
with the exception of the object-Accusative(déyaa Xen. βούλησιν Thuc., 
also τὶ παρά τινος Dem.), the verbal construction (with the Infin. etc.). 
The connection with the Dative in Thuc. 3. 97 τῇ τύχῃ ἐλπίσας (but 
in the following clause with ὅτι, where τύχη is the subject) gives 
ἐλπίσας the sense of πεποιθώς, trusting fortune, parallel to the pre- 
ceding τούτοις πεισθείς ---- ἃ sense in which ἐλπίδα ἔχειν also is often 
construed by the Greeks with ἐν and ἐπί with the Dat. On the other 
hand, as early as in the Sept., where the Hebr. words 5m>, nom, and 
moa are generally all translated by ἐλπίζειν, the construction with 
nouns has become by far the predominant one, in fact almost the only 
one in use, and from thence passed also into N. T. usage. The con- 
struction most current in the Sept. (in consequence of the above 
Ilebrew verbs being joined with >x and 53) is wit 1 éxé— both with 
persons and abstract terms —and likewise also ir the N. T.; that is 
to say, 1) with ἐπί and the Accusative, frequent in the O. T., 
in the N. T. indubitably only in 1 Tim. v. 5; 1 Pet. i. 13 (iii. 5); 
but 2) most commonly with ἐπί and the Dative, Rom. xy. 12 


176 CONSTRUCTION OF ὁμολογεῖν. [$ 133. 


153 (quotn.), 1 Tim. iv. 10; vi. 17, cf. 1 John iii.3; 8) with eis (rare 
in the Sept. e.g. Isa. li. 5), as εἰς ὃν John v. 45; 2 Cor. i. 10, εἰς θεόν 
1 Pet. iii. 5, cf. i. 21 also Acts xxiv. 15 ἐλπίδα ἔχων εἰς θεόν (but with 
Ace. and Infin. following); 4) with ἐν (likewise rare in the Sept., 
Ps. xxxii. 21; 2 ings xviii. 5, since there the Hebr. 3 also is com- 
monly rendered by ἐπί, e.g. with Mom in Ps. v. 12; vii. 2; xxv. 20, 
etc.), 1 Cor. xv. 19. Respecting Phil. ii. 19 (ἐλπ. ἐν κυρίῳ followed 
by the Acc. and Infin.) ef. the similar use in 5 p. 175 and 28 p. 185. 

Only in one passage (Matt. xii. 21) does it appear with the simple 
Dative, and that, strange to say, a quotation from the O. T. (Isa. 
xlii. 4), where the Sept., which Matt. seems to follow here, gives the 
common construction ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι. Fritzsche and others have 
therefore taken offence at this Dative; on account, however, of the 
almost unanimous authority [Sin. also] in its favor, it is retained by 
the editors, and must be explained by the analogy of the construction 
πεποιθέναι τινί, Of the remaining constructions those with ἐν and ἐπὶ 
with the Dative adhere most closely to classic usage, those with εἰς 
and ἐπί with the Accusative belong exclusively to the later (biblical) 
Greek. : 

ἴ ‘Opodroyetr is connected 1) in the signification to confess, as 
commonly, with the Dative of the person and Accusative of the thing, 
as Matt. vii. 23; Acts xxiv. 14, ete. 2) in the signification to praise 
(equiv. to ψάλλειν) ὁμολογεῖν, commonly ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, is likewise 
connected with the Dative of the person or of the personified object 
(ὀνόματι) ; but the use is borrowed from the Sept.’ where the Hiphil 
mvin is regularly translated thus; hence in the quotations from the 
O. T. in Rom. xiv. 11; xv. 9, ef. Heb. xiii. 15; Matt. xi. 25; Luke 
x. 213 3) in connection with the Accusative of the person 
Jesus (Rom. x. 9; 1 John ii. 23) it acquires the specific N. T. sig- 
nification to confess Jesus (as Redeemer, etc.), and the expression is 
then to be taken, in analogy with πιστεύειν τινί above, as an abbreviated 
clause (with a participle), such as appears in full in 1 John iv. 2 
ὁμολογεῖν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκί ἐληλυθότα, 2 John 7. The change 
into the Passive occurs Rom. x. 10. 4) The construction with 
ἔν τινι in the same sense is peculiar to Matthew and Luke; as, 
Matt. x. 32 ἐν ἐμοί (Vulg. me), ἐν αὐτῷ (Vulg. ewm D αὐτόν), Luke © 
xii. 8. But this is not a Hebraism, see Fritzsche ad Matt. p. 386. 
5) The person before whom as witness, or in whose presence, the 
confession is given, is expressed by means of the preposition €umpo- 
σθεν in the last two passages quoted, by ἐνώπιον in Rev. iii. 5. 
Cf. above, 3 p. 173. 


1 Hence the Apocalypse connects even αἰνεῖν with the Dative (xix. 5) 
according to a less common usage of the Sept. (Jer. xx. 13; 1 Chron. xvi. 36 
2 Chron. xx. 19, etc.). 


—s 
ἂν 


5 133. ] THE DATIVE. 177 


B. § 183, 2a and Ὁ; H. ὃ 602; C. § 450; Ὁ. p. 489; J. §§ 592. 601. 

With all verbs (both simple and compound) whose tignifica- 
tion can be traced back to the idea of union or approach 
in a friendly or a hostile sense, manifold periphrases by 
means of prepositions make their appearance, as elsewhere, 
instead of the Dative. 


Thus for example we have μάχεσθαι, διακρίνεσθαι, διαλέγεσθαι, ὁμιλεῖν 
τινί and πρός τινα, μιγνύειν μετά τινος and ἔν τινι, πολεμεῖν 
μετά τινος, κρίνεσθαι (to contend) τινί and μετά τινος Matt. v. 40; 
1 Cor. vi. 6; with other verbs there is no circumlocution, as ἐπιτίθε- 
σθαι, προσέχειν, καταλλάττειν, διαλλάττεσθαΐ τινι, etc. Notice, in par- 
ticular, with the Dative: διακατελέγχεσθαΐ τινι by controversy to convince 
Acts xviii. 28; érepofvyotvres ἀπίστοις in a peculiar sense, see the 
lexicons ; γαμηθῆναι (of the woman, p. 55) τινί after the Latin nudere, 
1 Cor. vii. 39; Mark x. 12 Tdf. [ed. 7]. Respecting προσέχειν ἀπό 
see ὃ 147, 3 p. 328. 

Β. 8 188,2 6. d.; H. $605; C. § 452; D. p. 489 Obs.; J. $589. 

Among verbs (mostly compounded with a preposition) of ex hort- 
ing and requesting the following deviate from the usual construc- 
tion: παραινεῖν with the Acc., Acts xxvii. 22; εὔχεσ θαί τινι and 
πρός twa (2 Cor. xiii. 7); καταρᾶσθαι with the Acc. Mark xi. 21; 
[Luke vi. 28 Lchm. Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.]; Jas. iii. 9, with the Dative 
Luke vi. 28 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]. Among those of censuring and 
reproaching ὀνειδίζειν has uniformly the Acc., both of the per- 
son and of the thing, Matt. v. 11 etc.; hence in the Passive, 1 Pet. iv. 
14; ἐγκαλεῖν tui and κατά twos (Rom. viii. 33), — the thing 
always with περί and the Gen. Acts xxiii. 29; xxvi. 2 (according to 
§ 147, 30 p. 341), xxvi. 7; in xix. 40 also στάσεως, as the following 
article τῆς shows, still depends on περί (cf. 18 below, p. 181); μέμ- 
φεσθαι with the Acc., Heb. viii. 8 (where, however, according to 
Bleek the reading αὐτοῖς and the connection of the same with λέγει are 
to be preferred). Other verbs, as ἐμβριμᾶσθαι, ἐπιτιμᾷν, are uniformly 
construed only with the Dative. 


B. § 133, 2f. and N. 4; H. § 608; C. 8 461; Ὁ. p.490; J. 8 594. 

An example of the Dative with 6 αὐτός is found in 1 Cor. xi. 5. 
Of the brachylogy already mentioned (§ 132, 20 p. 167 sq.) and 
peculiar to the ancient languages — (comparison with the whole 
instead of the part)— see several examples in the Apocalypse: ix. 10 
ἔχουσιν οὐρὰς ὁμοίας σκορπίοις, xiii. 11 κέρατα δύο ὅμοια ἀρν ίῳ. Sim- 
ilar is Jude 7 and the construction with ἰσότιμος 2 Pet.i.1. Inasolitary 
instance, in a quotation, ὡς with the Nominative is loosely used with 


ὁμοιοῦν instead of the Dative, Rom. ix. 29 (after the Sept., not the Heb.). 
28 


154 


10 


il 


155 


12 


178 DATIVUS COMMODI. [§ 138 


Tue Dativus Commopi anp Re_atep DariveEs. 
B. § 138, 2g.; H. 8 597; C. § 453; Ὁ. § 458; J. § 595 sq. 
To the Dative known under the designation Dativus 
commodi et incommodi, many and in part very peculiar 
constructions and phrases with the Dative may be referred. 


Thus μαρτυρεῖν τινι means to give testimony in one’s favor, as 
Luke iv. 22, etc.; by metonymy it is construed also with the Dative 
of the thing, as τῇ ἀληθείᾳ John v. 33 cf. Luke xi. 48 etc., for which 
also the circumlocution with περί and the Gen. is often used. On the 
other hand we find καταμαρτυρεῖν τιν ὅς according to ὃ 132, 16 p. 165. 
Notice further Matt. xiii. 14 ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία τοῦ 
Ἡσαΐου, 1 Cor. vii. 28 θλῖψιν τῇ σαρκὶ ἕξουσιν, 2 Cor. ii. 18 οὐκ 
ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί pov (not equiv. to ἐν τῇ σαρκί, ἐν τῷ 
πνεύματι), 2 Cor. ii. 1 ἔκρινα ἐμαυτῷ, ete. 

In this way is to be explained the use of the Dative in 
various connections which is especially characteristic of the 
Apostle Paul, and rests on profound views of language. 


Thus, after the analogy of the common phrase ζῇν τῷ θεῷ, κυρίῳ 
(Rom. vi. 10,11; xiv. 8; ἑαυτῷ xiv. 7; 2 Cor. y. 15), the expression 
ἀποθανεῖν τινί in the same passages is formed; and this verb is 
used by metonymy with the Dat. of the abstract, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ Rom. vi. 
2,10, 11, τῷ νόμῳ Gal. ii. 19 cf. Rom. vii. 4. In the same way in 
the Ist of Peter (ii. 24) in contrast with τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζῇ the word 
ἀπογενέσθαι alsc, which according to its composition ought to 
have the Genitive, is construed with the Dative ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις. Paul 
connects the same view with other predicates in order to express 
the ideal reference of an ordinary and every-day act to God or any 
individual, or even to a (substituted) abstract term; see the entire 
argument in Rom. xiv. 4-8, where, besides the verbs above-named, 
also φρονεῖν, ἐσθίειν, οὐκ ἐσθίειν, στήκειν,Σ πίπτειν stand in the same 
construction. In Gal. v. 1 τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ (ἡ) ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέ: 


1 By comparison with this passage the Dative in Luke xviii. 51 is explained 
most satisfactorily, τελεσθήσεται πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα διὰ τῶν προφητῶν τῷ υἱῷ 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ; here the Dative depends on both predicates by virtue of the σχῆμα 
ἀπὸ κοινοῦ (as in § 132, 9 p. 160 the Accusative with ἐπιλαβέσθαι), although ex- 
ternally it belongs rather to the former (τελεσθήσεται). The simple resolution of 
the Dative into περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ is thoroughly unphilological, and the Vulgate’s 
translation (de filo) according to the above exposition is only to be defended 
in a general way. The Dative if referred to γεγραμμένα alone, must at least 
have been preceded by ἐπί, as in John xii. 16. [Yet ef. 3 Mace. yi. 41.] 

2 In 2 Cor. i. 24 (τῇ yap πίστει ἑστήκατε) the assumption of this Dat. would 
impart to the passage too high an oratorical coloring. It is more probable that 
τῇ πίστει here is to be taken in the sense of the phrase στήκειν ἐν τῇ πίστει which 
elsewhere occars (1 Cor. xvi. 13), see Meyer and 19 below, p. 182. 


§ 133.] DATIVUS ETHICUS. 1τυ 


ρωσεν etc., τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ is according to both readings equally to le 
taken as a Dat. com. (see especially Meyer pp. 256, 259). The Dative 
in Rom. vi. 20 ἐλεύθεροι Fre τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ is peculiar and hard to 
reproduce ; it is called out by the parallelism of δουλωθέντες τῷ θεῷ 
in vs. 22 (and to be rendered perhaps towards, in relation to, but not 


Srom). 
Β. 8188, Ν.δ; H. $599; C. 8 462 6.; Ὁ. § 459; J. § 600, 2. 

The softer Dat. com., commonly designated by the gram- 
marians the Dativus ethicus, is not a mere peculiarity of 
the earlier language, but a genuine product of the language 
of the people, whence it has found its way so frequently into 
the poems of Homer, the writings of Herodotus, Plato, etc. 
Accordingly the assumption of such a Dative in the N. T. is 
quite in accordance with the genius of its language. Cf. the 
note on ὃ 129 a, 5 p. 140. 

Here belong: Rev. ii. 16 ἔρχομαί σοι ταχὺ καὶ πολεμήσω μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, 
5 ἔρχομαΐί σοι καὶ κινήσω τὴν Avxviav;' probably also 1 John v. 16 if, 
according to ὃ 129, 14 note p. 183, we assume ὁ θεός as subject for 
δώσει and refer αὐτῷ as Dat. eth. to the person αἰτήσας ; and, according 
to many interpreters, also the critically and hermeneutically difficult 
passage Heb. iv. 2 (according to the more ancient reading [so x] — 
received also by Tdf.[eds.2,7,8]—py συγκεκραμένος τῇ πίστει τοῖς ἀκού- 
σασιν i.e. the word which in the hearers was not mixed with faith, see 
Mey. [i.e. Liinemann] in loc. On the other hand, for Lchm.’s reading 
[so Treg.] see Bleek II. p. 501 sqq.). Simpler and easily intelligible 
is the Dat. in John vi. 13 ἃ ἐπερίσσευσαν τοῖς BeBpwxdow. Finally, the 
Dative in ἀποτάξασθαί τινι to dismiss any one, bid him farewell, 
literally to withdraw one’s self for one; this phrase is quite un-Attic, 
in fact solecistic (ἔκφυλον πάνυ Phryn.), and first made its appearance 
in the Alexandrian age (Josephus, Philo), but later became pretty 
general: Mark vi. 46; Luke ix. 61, etc. 


B. $133, N. 7; H. § 601; C. § 462; D. § 459; J. 8 600, 1. 

Also of the Dative of subjective judgment—closely re- 
lated to the preceding — there are several unquestionable examples : 
in particular, Acts vii. 20 ἦν ἀστεῖος τῷ θεῷ (in the sight of God), 
2 Cor. x. 4 ὅπλα δυνατὰ τῷ θεῷ (Luth. mdchtig vor Gott, [A.V. mirg. 
to God |); 2 Pet. iii. 14 is doubtful (see ὃ 134, 2 p. 187). From the 


1 DeWette differently, — taking oo: in the sense of fo thee. But the appeal to 
ἥκειν τινί Plut. Aem. Paul. 16 is not in point, since there the Dative depends on 
the expression ἧκε μηνύων. In Philostr. Vit. Apoll. 2.14 ἥκειν τινί has quite 
another sense, and in Matt. xxi. 5 (Zech. ix. 9) σοι is a literal translation of the 
Hebr. Je. [This note, as respects de Wette, seems to be founded in a mistake.] 


1 


13 


DE 


if 


15 


180 DATIVE AFTER SUBSTANTIVES. [§ 133. 


O. T. cf. Jonah iii. 3 πόλις μεγάλη τῷ θεῷς But it corresponds more 
with N. T. usage (cf. 3 above p. 172) to periphrase this Dative by 
means of a preposition, and none was better suited to this purpose 
than ἐνώπιον (Hebr. 28>, Eng. before i.e. in the sight of) eg. 
δίκαιος, βδέλυγμα ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ, μέγας ἐνώπιον κυρίου (Luke i. 6 Lchm. 
15; xvi. 1ὅ ; Acts iv. 19, etc.), πολυτελὲς ἐνώπιον θεοῦ 1 Pet. iii. 4 (cf. 
the analogous use of ἐνώπιον with the so-called Dativus Passivi ὃ 134, 
3 p. 188), as well as ἔναντι ἐναντίον, which is often interchanged 
with ἐνώπιον in the variots readings, Acts viii. 21; Luke i. 6 Tdf. 
[Treg.], xxiv. 19, and the compound κατενώπιον see 3 p. 173. 


B. $183, 2h.; H. §595d.; C. §§ 454e. 464 ο.; J. $588. | 

Some relics of the construction (formerly pretty extended, and 
called by the old grammarians σχῆμα Κολοφώνιον) of the Dative in 
immediate dependence upon substantives, particularly those 
whose stem-verb permits the same construction (as βροτοῖς dorjp Aesch.* 
have been preserved in 2 Cor. ix. 11, 12 (where in both cases τῷ θεῷ is 
best made to depend on εὐχαριστία), and in 2 Cor. xi. 28 Lchm. [ Treg. 
Tdf.] according to the reading ἐπίστασίς μοι. Respecting the signi- 
fication of this expression interpreters differ. If the Dative is genuiné 
(which, according to the authorities [N* also] and the rendering of 
cod. Claromont. in me, is hai dly to be doubted) ἐπίστασις cannot sig- 
nify attention, because then the Dative would not stand in the relation 
of verbal regimen to the substantive. ‘The most probable assump- 
tion is that as ἀπόστασις (from ἀφίστασθαί twos) signifies defection, 
so ἐπίστασις (from ἐφίστασθαί τινι) signifies accession, uprising (Acts 
xxiv. 12), and ἐπίστασίς μοι denotes concourse, thronging, to me 
(ἐπίστασις occurs in the sense of thronging also in App. B.C. 4, 129), 
more precisely my being encompassed, beleaguered, and the detention 
caused thereby, with which the Dative is as necessary as the Gen. is 
with ἀπόστασις, ἀφίστασθαι. Cf. Riickert in loc. The Dative with 


157 participles and adjectives used substantively is still more plainly an 


16 


effect of the verbal power of both these parts of speech, and needs no 
further confirmation by means of examples. 


B. § 133, 3and N. 10; H. $605; C. 8 699 f. g.; J. § 622, Obs. 1; § 628, Obs. 4; § 635, Obs. 

That compound verbs, particularly those compounded with 
σύν, ἐν, ἐπί, are joined to the Dative, see § 147, 33 p. 344. In John 
ix 6 ἐπέχρισεν αὐτοῦ τὸν πηλὸν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς the Genitive indeed 
seems to depend on ἐπέχρισεν (according to B even on ἐπέθηκεν), 
somewhat after the analogy, therefore, of verbs of touching. ‘This 
however is not the case; on the contrary, the Gen. αὐτοῦ (cf. vs. 15) 
is to be connected by Hyperbaton with ὀφθαλμούς, and the addition 


§ 133.] DATIVE OF THE THING. 181 


τοῦ τυφλοῦ to be expunged, with Lchm. Τὰ} [Treg.]. See more ex- 
amples of the sort from the classics in B. ὃ 133, N. 10 and from the 
N. T. in the section on Hyperbaton ὃ 151, 18 5844. pp. 887 sqq. 


B. Dativ2 or tHe Tine (INSTRUMENT, ETC.). 
B. § 138, 4; H. $6068q.; C. § 465sq.; D. § 457; J. § 6075q. 

That the Dative of the Thing comprises most of the relations 17 
of the Latin Ablative does not need to be shown at length. 
But the language of the N.T. departs a little from the ordinary 
usage in that the preposition ἐν is prefixed to this Dative 
with uncommon frequency.? Although a similar use is here 
and there to be found even in Greek writers also (see the 
grammars under ἐν), yet this N. T. peculiarity is hardly an 
extension of those isolated instances in the classics, but mani- 
festly a result of the frequent occurrence of the preposition in 
the Sept. (after the example of the Hebr. 3), as is apparent from 
countless examples from the Old T.and New, see 19 p. 182. 
And in general, through the influence of the Oriental manner 
of expression, both the compass and contents of the signification 
of this preposition became essentially modified, see ὃ 147, 9 sq. 
p- 328 sq. 


B. § 183, 4 ἃ.; H. ὃ 601 a.; C. §466b.; Ὁ. p. 491; J. ὃ 591, Obs. 2. 

With χρῆσθαι, elsewhere in the N. T. always construed with the [3 
Dative, the Accusative is given to us by the oldest mss. [ Sin. also] in 
one passage, 1 Cor. vii. 31 οἱ χρώμενοι τὸν κόσμον ὡς μὴ καταχρώ- 
μενοι. The instance is so isolated that recent editors were the first to 
venture to put it in the text. The construction is indeed an erroneous 
one (the appeal to Xen. Ages. 11, 11 is inadmissible as the Acc. there 
was set aside long ago, and still less ought we to argue back from the 
usage of later Byzantines), but finds its apology in the use of the 
compound καταχρῆσθαι with the Acc. by later writers, as Lucian, and 158 
Plutarch (see Steph. Thes. sub voce), so that the Acc. in the above 
passage is governed to a certain extent ἀπὸ κοινοῦ (δ 132, 9 p. 160; 
133, 11 note’ p. 178) by the καταχρώμενοι also immediately following ; 
see another example of such retro-action in 9 above, p. 177 (Acts xix. 


1 The phrase τοῦ τυφλοῦ, taken up again by Tdf. in his [7th] edition of 1859, 
has been expunged once more in his [8th] edition of 1869 (after cod. Sin.). 

» Many, particularly of the earlier commentators, believed therefore that ἐν was 
a sort of sign of the Dative in the N.T., and was added even to a personal 
Dative without altering the sense. Che error of such a view Winer 217 (204) has 
sufficiently shown by examples. 


19 


182 PERIPHRASES FOR THE DATIVE OF THE THING. [§ 18% 


40). Certainly native Greek writers would hardly have allowed 
themselves to employ constructions of the sort. 

Examples of the addition of év to the instrumental Dative, 
where the Greeks decidedly would have used the simple Dative only, 
are the following: ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται (Matt. v. 13), ἐν & μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε 
(Matt. vii. 2), ἀγαπᾷν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ etc. (in Matt. xxii. 37 closely 
after the Hebr., cf. the parallel passage Mark xii. 30), καταπατεῖν ἐν 
τοῖς ποσίν (Matt. vii. 6), ἀποκτείνειν ἐν μαχαίρῃ (Rev. xiii. 10), ἀπολέσθαι 
ἐν μαχαίρῃ (Matt. xxvi. 52), διαφέρειν ἐν δόξῃ (1 Cor. xv. 41), ete. 
Further, examples where ἐν is alternately used and omitted, often 
close together, are ὑγιαίνειν ἐν τῇ πίστει (Tit. i. 18) and τῇ πίστει 
(ii. 2) cf. 12 above, note’ p. 178, ἐν τῷ στόματι and στόματι ὁμολογεῖν, 
ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ and τῇ καρδίᾳ πιστεύειν (Rom. x. 9 etc. where, however, 
the change from the Act. to the Pass. construction has, perhaps, not 
been without influence), βαπτίζειν ὕδατι (Luke iii. 16 ete.) and ἐν ὕδατι 
(not in water, Matt. iii. 11 ete.), β. ἐν πνεύματι, B. ἐν πυρί (e.g. Acts i. 5 
Ἰωάννης ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἐν πνεύματι βαπτισθήσεσθε), etc. 
That ἐν can stand even with Persons so far forth as they serve as 
the means of an action, see ὃ 147, 10 p. 329) 


Remark. Otherwise, when Persons are the means, διὰ with the 
Gen. is employed as usual. As a special peculiarity, however, is to be 
noticed the Hebraistic periphrasis for it (which really is not rare) by 
means of the Substantive χείρ, and that both in the form dca 
χειρός (323), even with a Gen. Plur. following, and αἰβο διὰ χειρῶν: 
e.g. Mark vi. 2 δυνάμεις ai διὰ χειρῶν αὐτοῦ γινόμεναι, Acts ii. 23 διὰ 
χειρὸς ἀνόμων, Xi. 30 διὰ χειρὸς Βαρνάβα καὶ SavAov, xiv. 3; xix. 11 ete.; 
rarely ἐν χειρί, Gal. iii. 19 — (this is frequent in the Sept., as Gen. 
Xxxviii. 20 etc.). 

Many other periphrases expressive of simple relations are formed 
with the word χείρ after Hebrew precedent; for example, of the 
Dative with παραδιδόναι by means of eis χεῖρας ("77 55), Matt. xxvi. 
45; Mark ix. 31 etc.; ἐκ χειρός (7%) is used with verbs of separa- 
tion, liberation, instead of the Gen. or the simple ἐκ, John x. 89 
ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν, Acts xii. 11; Rev. xix. 2 ἐξεδίκησεν τὸ 
αἷμα ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτῆς (like 2 Kings ἰχ. 7 ; 1 Sam. xxiv. 16 ete.) ἔοι 
which in Rev. vi. 10 we have merely ἐκδικεῖς ἐκ τῶν κατοικοῦντων (cf. 
xviii. 20; Luke xi. 50, 51), and σὺν χειρί, as Acts vii. 85 ἀγγέλου 


1 By this addition of ἐν to the instrumental Dat. it is possible for the language 
of the N. T. to make instrumental limitations depend, without a participle, im 
mediately upon substantives. Several instances of the sort have already been 
treated of § 125, 2 p. 92 and 11 p. 96,— instances some of which indeed have 
their foundation in the analogy of ordinary Greek usage, but some are destitute 
of such analogy, and belong t« the peculiar language of the N. T. 


§ 133.] DATIVE OF MANNER. 183 


by the hand, under the protection, of an angel. All these phrases, like 

the trope χεὶρ κυρίου (Acts xi. 21), plainly bear an Oriental stamp, and 

are not to be identified with isolated, analogous (poetic), modes of 

expression in Greek authors. Cf. in general Gesen. under "Δ. 159 
With the idea of speaking, instead of χείρ the term στόμα is sub- 

stituted, hence διὰ στόματος Acts i. 16; iv. 25, etc.; also with a 

Plural following, iii. 18, 21 (and likewise in the Sept., 2 Chron. xxxvi. 

21, etc.). See more respecting these and similar periphrases under 

prepositions § 146, 1 p. 319. 


B. § 138, 4b.; H. 8 608sq.; C. § 467; D. p. 4878q.; J. § 608. 


The Dative of the mode or manner (ablativus modi), as 3 
well as the Dative of complement and closer limitation 
(in which case it often takes the place of the similarly used 
Accusative in Greek writers, see ὃ 131, 9 p. 152), is only a 
phase of the foregoing Dative; as, ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, βραδὺς 
τῇ καρδίᾳ, ἀδύνατος τοῖς ποσίν, περιτέμνεσθαι τῷ ἔθει after the 
custom (Acts xv. 1), προφητεύειν τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι by virtue of 
(by) thy name (Matt. vii. 22). In its stead we frequently find 
of course, as in Greek authors, periphrases by means of such 
prepositions as κατά, διά, ἐν; and in particular, with ἐν 
many adverbial expressions of mode and manner are formed — 
likewise after Greek precedent; as, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, ἐν παραβολῇ, 
ἐν πραὕὔτητι, ἐν μέρει, ἐν τάχει, etc. On all these, as well as 
respecting the common construction ποιεῖν τὸ ἐν ὀνόματί τινος, 
see 8 147,10 p. 329; and respecting ἔρχεσθαι, πορεύεσθαι ἐν in 
particular, the following paragraph under b). 

As an extension of this Dative, mention may here be made 93 
of two genuine biblical uses of this case, which, since they are 
manifestly indebted to Oriental phraseology for their origin, 
must have appeared more or less alien to the Greek idiom: 


a) The Hebrew usage of subjoining to a finite verb the form of the 
Infin. absolute (m47" min, etc.) to strengthen the verbal idea in divers 
aspects (see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 778 5ᾳ. [Gr. ὃ 128, 87) is commonly 
translated in the Sept. by the Dative of the abstract derived 
from the verb (or even by the Participle of the same verb, on 
which see ὃ 144, 30 p. 313) ; as, διαμαρτυρίᾳ μεμαρτύρηται Gen. xliii. 2, 
ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπιθυμήσεις xxxi. 30, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε ii. 17, φθορᾷ φθα- 
ρήσεται Isa. xxiv. 8, κλαυθμῷ ἔκλαυσεν xxx. 19, ἰάσεται ἰάσει xix. 22, 
ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε Vi. 9, χάρητε χαρᾷ Ixvi. 10, ἁφῇ ἁφθήσεται Jer. xxxi. 
(xlviii.) 9, φυγῇ ἔφυγον xxvi. (xlvi.) 5, κακίᾳ κακοποιήσετε 1 Sam. xii. 25, 


184 Χαρᾷ χαίρειν, πορεύεσθαι φόβῳ, ETC. [§ 133 


aud many others. Analogous expressions, in part new formations, 
are found in the N. T.: ἀκοῇ ἀκούειν Matt. xiii. 14 (quotn.), ἐπιθυμεῖν 
ἐπιθυμίᾳ Luke xxii. 15, χαρᾷ χαίρειν John iii. 29 (but with a limiting 
adjective added in Greek fashion ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην Matt. ii. 10), 
ἀπειλῇ ἀπειλεῖν Acts iv. 17 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7], παραγγελίᾳ παρηγγείλαμεν 
v. 28, ἀναθέματι ἀνεθεματίσαμεν xxiii. 14 (Deut. xiii. 15; xx. 17), 
προσευχῇ προσηύξατο Jas. v.17. Similarly θανάτῳ τελευτάτω Mark vii. 
10 (quotn.), ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν θανάτῳ Rev. ii. 23; vi. 8. That this usage, 
notwithstanding the various similar phrases from earlier and later 
writers which Lobeck, Parall. p. 523sqq., adduces (γάμῳ γεγαμηκώς 

160 Dem., φύσει πέφυκεν Hippocr., παιδιᾷ παίζειν Plut., also φυγῇ ἔφυγον 
Plat., in Latin oceidione occidere), is not an outgrowth of Greek 
phraseology, but solely derived from the Hebrew (or Alexandrian) 
idiom, this same scholar shows clearly and convincingly by a compari- 
son of examples on both sides. 

b) Not less peculiar is the Dative which is subjoined to verbs 
of going (πορεύεσθαι, στοιχεῖν, περιπατεῖν), when taken tropically 
(cf. our walk), to designate the way i.e. the manner of walk. So 
in particular with ὁδῷ, ὁδοῖς (after the Hebr., see Gesen. under 975), 
which is used indeed in the O. T. in the proper sense (1 Sam. xv. 20), 
but often enough also in the figurative (Ps. lxxx. 14; Tob. iv. 5), in 
the N. T. Acts xiv. 16 εἴασεν πορεύεσθαι τοῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, Jude 11 τῇ 
ὁδῷ τοῦ Κάϊν ἐπορεύθησαν ; 660 πορεύεσθαι is often found also in 
Hermas. Analogous is στοιχεῖν ἴχνεσιν in Rom. iv. 12. After the 
same model many other constructions are formed, instead of ὁδός 
some other abstract term being added in the Dative, e.g. περιπατεῖν 
τοῖς ἔθεσιν to walk in, after, the customs Acts xxi. 21, πνεύματι Gal. v. 
16, πορεύεσθαι τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου Acts ix. 31, εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύ- 
ματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν Gal. v. 25, κανόνι vi. 16, also merely τῷ αὐτῷ se. 
κανόνι (see the various readings) Phil. iii. 16. 

That in this case also, instead of the simple Dative periphrases 
with prepositions appear, follows as a matter of course after all 
that has been said above ;— particularly with ἐν and κατά, as ἐν ἀγάπῃ, 
ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, κατὰ ἀγάπην, σάρκα, ἄνθρωπον πορεύεσθαι etc., see the Lex. 
Οπίσω also (see 3 above, p. 172) belongs here in the two parallel 
passages 2 Pet. ii. 10; Jude 7 ὀπίσω σαρκὸς πορευόμενοι, ἀπελθοῦσαι, 
literally to walk after the flesh (the lusts), Germ. dem Fleische nach- 
gehen. The familiar Hebrew formula of adieu (1 Sam. i. 17 
etc.) runs in Greek either πορεύου, ὕπαγε εἰς εἰρήνην or ἐν εἰρήνῃ (Mark 
v.34; Luke vii. 50; Acts xvi. 36 etc.),-—differing in conception but 
not in sense. The phrase ἔρχεσθαι ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου (Matt. xxi. 9) 
is also quoted from the O. T. 


Πβ1881 CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS OF EMOTION. 185 


B. 8.188, 4¢.; H. § 611; C. $456sq.; D. p. 491; J. § 607. 

Among verbs expressing emotion, the verb ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι (see 
p- 51) to rejoice, which did not come into use till the time of the 
Sept., has acquired especial currency in the Bible: sometimes, as in 
the Sept., with ἐν; sometimes with ἐπί and the Dat. Further, the 
verb εὐδοκεῖν to be well pleased, used also by later profane writers 
(Polyb. Diod.), is employed again most commonly with év (rarely eis 
2 Pet. i. 17) after Alexandrian precedent; also with the simple Acc. 
of the thing, Heb. x. 6, 8 ὁλοκαυτώματα ... οὐκ ηὐδόκησας (for which 
in Ps. xxxix. 7 the Alex. text reads ἐζήτησας). Whether it was also 
joined to the Acc. of the person (Gen. xxxiii. 10) is doubtful; in 
Matt. xii. 18 Tdf. in ed. 7 [so 8] has returned to the original and 
better attested reading εἰς ὅν [N* B ov]. The verb καυχᾶσθαι to 
boast is especially used by Paul, — most frequently again with ἐν 
(Jer. ix. 23), also with ἐπί and the Dat. (Ps. v. 12) and with the Acc. 
of the thing, see Wahl; on the other hand, the Gen. with xataxav- 
χᾶσθαι (Rom. xi. 18) is to be explained by the altered signification 
of the verb, after the analogy of the syntactical use of καταφρονεῖν, 
καταγελᾷν (ὃ 132,15 p. 165). Ξενέίζεσθαι (Luther, sich befremden 
lassen, [ A.V. think strange ]) is used with the simple Dative and with 
ἐν, 1 Pet. iv. 4, 12. Among other more common verbs θαυμάζειν 
is no longer, as in the classics, joined to the Genitive, but most com- 
monly, yet quite idiomatically, to ἐπί with the Dat. (not to ἐν; on Luks 
i. 21 see below § 140, 9 p. 263), περί with the Gen. Luke ii. 18, in 
a peculiar, pregnant, sense to ὀπίσω Rev. xiii. 3; moreover it ic 
several times used with the simple Accusative — not only of the thing 
(τὸ γεγονός, τὸ ὅραμα), but also once of the person Luke vii. ¥. 
Εὐαρεστεῖν and -εἶσθαι (only in the Ep. to the Heb.) is used 
with the simple Dative. Χαΐρειν commonly with ἐπί and vke 
Dative, sometimes also with ἐν (Luke x. 20; Phil. i. 18; Col. i. 74). 
But in the Pauline phrase χαίρειν ἐν κυρίῳ the words ἐν κυρίῳ (as 
above in 5 p. 175) are an adverbial adjunct designating the mode or 
nature of the joy; hence e.g. in Phil. iv. 10 the object of the joy is 
added in a clause with ὅτι. So with the substantive, χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι 
ἁγίῳ Rom. xiv. 17 (cf. § 125, 11 p. 96). On the diversified construc- 
tions of the other verbs of emotion, such as μακροθυμεῖν, εὐφραίνεσθαι, 
ὀργίζεσθαι, λυπεῖσθαι, συλλυπεῖσθαι, ἐκπλήττεσθαι, μεριμνᾷν, etc., see the 
lexicons. 

Remark. To set up a special class (as is often done) under the 
title Dative of the end (consilii) is unnecessary either in reference 
to general or to N. T. usage, since all the examples brought wider 
this head may be referred to the idea of the preceding Dative (ractive, 


occasion, propter not causa),— whether such a Dative stands with 
24 


Lo) 


186 DA‘IVE OF TIME, ETC. [§ 133. 


strict Passives (Rom. xi. 20 propter infidiam, Gal. vi. 12 propter 
crucem), or sometimes elliptically with Active or Neuter verbs a 
Passive idea being supplied (cf. the Lat. metu, odio, studio for propter 
metum, etc., Zumpt ὃ 454); as, Rom. iv. 20 οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, 
1 Cor. viii. 7 τινὲς δὲ τῇ συνειδήσει ... ἐσθίουσιν, 2 Cor. i. 15 ταύτῃ τῇ 
πεποιθήσει ἐβουλόμην ἐλθεῖν. 


Β. § 188,46. note; C. 8 472e.; J. 88 496. 607. 

95 To the examples adduced from Greek authors of verbs whose idea 
is capable of such varied reference that they can be construed with 
all three cases, may be added from the N. T. the verb μεριμνᾷν: 
according to 11 p. 178 it ‘is construed with the Dative (τῇ ψυχῇ, τῷ 
σώματι Matt. vi. 25 etc.), takes after it the object of the care as usual 
in the neut. Acc. (ra τοῦ κυρίου 1 Cor. vii. 32; τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν Phil. ii. 
20), and finally in one passage according to recent editors [80 cod. Sin. ] 
is connected with the Genitive (like other verbs of caring ὃ 132, 
15 p. 164), viz. Matt. vi. 34 μεριμνήσει ἑαυτῆς. Moreover, it is used 
with περί, ὑπέρ, see Wahl. 


B. §138,4¢.; H. $618; C. § 469; D. p. 487; J. 8 606. 

2% In reference to Time, the Dative is used to specify a)a 
definite point of time; b) the space of time (within, for 
which the Acc. is also used, see ὃ 131, 11 p. 152); c) 
periodically returning portions of time. 

In cases a) and Ὁ) ἐν is often added to the Dative (as in 
Lat. in, during); in c) we find besides κατά with the Acc. also 
(cf. p. 30). 

Examples: of a) ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί, τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, etc.; of b) ἱκανῷ 
χρόνῳ ; πολλοῖς, αἰωνίοις χρόνοις : ἑτέραις γενεαῖς ; τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἕξ 
ἔτεσιν, Acts viii. 11 ; Rom. xvi. 25; Eph. iii.5; John ii. 20, ete. The 
reading varies between the Dat. and the Acc. in John xiv. 9; Acts 
xxviii. 12, also with the Nom. Matt. xv. 82 (on which see ὃ 129 a, 3 
Ρ. 139), now with and now without ἐν John ii. 20; ofc) τοῖς caf- 
βασιν, τῇ ἑορτῇ, ἐν σαββάτῳ, Matt. xii. 2,5; Luke ii. 41 ete., κατὰ ἑορτήν 
Matt. xxvii. 15 ete. 

B. § 183, 5; cf. H. §500b.; J. § 611, Obs. 1. 

162 The possibility of the combination of two Datives in the N. T. 

97 according to the σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος is as little to be denied as 
the construction of two Accs. (8 131, 6 p. 149) and of two Gens. 
(8 1382, 17 note p. 167). Yet the compass of the N. T. books is so 
limited that the opportunity for the construction was rare. 2 Cor. 
xii. 7 ἐδόθη μοι σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί plainly belongs here. Elsewhere we 
find two different Datives united in one construction, but not after 


§ 134.] THE PASSIVE. 187 


the above schema: 1 John v. 16 and Heb. iv. 2 (on which see 15 
above, p. 179). Rom. vii. 25 τῷ vot δουλεύω νόμῳ θεοῦ grammatically 
viewed presents no difficulty. 


THE VERB. 
THe Passive. 
Β. § 134, 1-8; H. § 698; C. § 586; D. § 481; J. IL. p. 21. 

The most common mode of designating the personal 
author of a passive state is, in the N. T. as in the classics, 
by means of ὑπό with the Gen.; in certain cases also by means 
of παρά with the Gen., ἐκ and even ἀπό. Respecting all this 
see the Prepositions. 

The personal medium is likewise designated as usual by διά with 
the Gen., as τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἤ σαΐου, Ἱερεμίου, τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑ πὸ τοῦ κυρίου διὰ 
τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος etc., or hebraistically by διὰ χειρός, στόματος, 
according to ὃ 133, 20 p. 182. 


B. § 184, 4; H. §600; ©. $461; Ὁ. pp. 481, 492; J. ὃ 611. 

Instead of the prepositions, the Dative alone, according 
to an ancient usage, is employed to designate the personal 
author (the Dat. rez coincides with the Dat. instrument), 
especially with the Perfect and Aorist Pass., as Luke xxiii. 15 
οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστὶν πεπραγμένον αὐτῷ. Yet this use in 
Greek is by no means so general that we can assume that it 
can be substituted indifferently in any and every case for ὑπό 
with the Gen. On the contrary, it is restricted, at least in 
prose, to certain predicates and phrases, to which this Dative 
imparts ἃ somewhat modified signification corresponding 
to the force of the Dative. Cf. with this the Latin phrase 
alicut probare, and the like, in Lat. prose ; Zumpt § 419. 


Thus the Dative in the common phrase ὀφθῆναί τινι (cf. Eur. Bacch. 
912) imparts to ὀφθῆναι the simple neuter force, to appear to one (cf. 
p- 52), and the same holds true more or less of the phrases (likewise 
often recurring) εὑρεθῆναι and γνωσθῆναί τινι; as, Rom. x. 20 (quotn.) 
εὑρέθην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν, ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὰ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν, 
Luke xxiv. 8ὅ ; 2 Cor. xii. 20; Phil. iv. ὅ γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις 
(become known). In 2 Pet. iii. 14 αὐτῷ, as the very position indicates, 
is best referred ἀπὸ κοινοῦ to both terms (ἀμώμητοι and εὑρεθῆναι), 
since it stands in equally close relation to both, (respecting the Dative 
with ἀμώμητος see § 133, 14 p. 179). 

Formerly many other Datives also were taken in the same sense 
(as Dats. of the author), but incorrectly (e.g. Matt. v.21; Heb. iv. 2); 


163 


188 THE OBJECT WITH THE PASSIVE. [§ 184. 


for in general the assumption of such a Dative, particularly in the 
N. T., seems only to be warranted where analogy and usage render 
its presence manifest. 

Remark. As a periphrasis for this Dative, i.e. to render it vivid or 
to approximate it to the Oriental style of thought, the preposition 
ἐνώπιον is employed (agreeably to the closely related cases in ὃ 133, 
14 p. 180); as, Luke xii. 6 ἕν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιλελησμένον ἐνώπιον 
tov θεοῦ by him, i.e. concretely, in his sight, before him; Rom. iii. 20 
ov δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, with which may be compared 
παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δικαιοῦται Gal. iii. 11, οἵ. Rom. ii. 13; 2 Thess. i. 6. 


Β. § 134, δ; H. § 694; C. $586; Ὁ. p. 481 5ᾳ.; J. II. p. 22. 

Since even the earlier authors did not hesitate to construe 
in the Passive, like pure transitives, verbal ideas which 
take their limiting object in another case than the Accusative, 
the N. T. authors also, particularly the better writers among 
them, made this good classic usage their own, — recommended 
as it was by facility of construction. 


Thus we find κατηγορεῖσθαι in Matt. xxvii. 12; Acts xxv. 16, 
κατεγνωσμένος in Gal. ii. 11, ἐγκαλεῖσθαι in Acts xix. 40 etc., paprupei- 
σθαι (testimony is given me, I get the witness) frequently in the Acts 
and the Ep. to the Heb. (see Wahl), —a liberty which John (in his 
third Ep. vs. 12 Δημητρίῳ μεμαρτύρηται ὑπὸ πάντων) did not avail 
himself of, perhaps because it was unknown to him. Further, 
εὐαρεστεῖσθαι Heb. xiii. 16, διακονηθῆναι Mark x. 45. Χρηματίζειν τινί 
to give a response to one (Jos. Antt. 10, 1, 3 etc.) undergoes as a rule 
the same change into the Passive: χρηματίζομαι it is revealed to me, 
divinitus edoceor (Matt. ii. 12 etc.; Acts x. 22; Heb. viii. 5 etc.); 
only in Luke ii. 26 is the other (impersonal) construction found, ἦν 
αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον (but D gives ἦν κεχρηματισμένος as usual). See 
still other examples in 7 below, p. 189. 

With other verbs the personal mode of expression is quite universal 
because they were in general by later writers connected rather with 
the Accusative, i.e. regarded as transitives. Thus particularly πλεο- 
νεκτεῖσθαι according to § 132, 22 p. 168, εὐαγγελίζεσθαι in the Passive 
§ 131, 4 p. 148. 


B. § 134, 6; H. §553.a.; C. §587; D. 8 465; J. § 545, 8; also Ρ. 256, Obs. 8, 

The retention of the Accusative of the thing as the 
object of the Passive, with verbs which govern two Aces., 
is found with διδάσκειν, 2 Thess. ii. 15 cf. Gal. i. 12; and with 
ποτίζειν according to the present reading in 1 Cor. xii. 13 (ὃν 
πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν). 


§ 134.] THE PASSIVE. 189 


The anomalous passive construction with such verbs as κρύπτεσθαι, 
ἀποκρύπτεσθαι, ἀφαιρεῖσθαι ἀπό twos (Col. i. 26; Luke xviii. 34; x. 42) 
rests on the construction of these verbs with aad, — more usual even 
in the Active, see ὃ 131, 6 p. 149. Respecting the Gen. ἀπεστερημένος 
τῆς ἀληθείας (1 Tim. vi. 5) see ὃ 132, 5 p. 158. 


B. 8.184, N.2; H. $555a.; D. § 466; J. ὃ 548, of. p. 245. 

That in the constructions treated of in ὃ 131, 5 p. 148 (αὔξειν 164 
αὔξησιν etc.) the Acc. of the abstract is in like manner retained when § 
the verb is changed into the Passive, has already been illustrated by 
examples under that head. Of the same origin is the elliptical phrase 
(cf. § 123, 8 p. 82) in Luke xii. 47 δαρήσεται πολλάς, ὀλίγας 50. 
πληγάς, and the construction (formed regularly after παιδευθῆναι 
παιδείαν) ἐπαιδεύθη πᾶσαν σοφίαν in a (rejected) se of cod. D 
_ Acts vii. 22. 

Β. § 134, 7; H. 8 595; C. § 587; D. p. 482; J. $584, 2. 

But not only when the verb is capable of being construed 7 
with two nouns in the Accusative is it followed by an Acc. in 
the Passive; the Acc. of the thing (often expressed, ac- 
cording to ὃ 131, 10 p. 152, by a pron. or adj. of the neuter 
gender) or of the abstract is also subjoined to the Passive 
predicates of many other verbs. That this use stands in the 
closest relation to the so-called Greek Accusative treated of in 
§ 131, 9 p. 152, has already been remarked there. It is to 
such a degree characteristic of the Greek tongue above all 
others, and was so firmly rooted, too, in the phraseology of 
the people, that it not only did not disappear from the later 
language and in particular that of the N. T., but was employed 
with decided preference by all the N. T. writers nearly to the 
same extent. The Latins also borrowed it. as is well known, 
from the Greek. 

As the subject itself has been rendered sufficiently familiar by 
general Greek grammar, we may adduce here briefly (in order to 
exhibit the extension of the usage in the N. T.) the examples only, 
among which are to be included the instances where the personal 
Subject implied in the verb has arisen from the Dative or the 
Genitive in the Active (4 p. 188): ζημιοῦσθαι τὴν ψυχήν Matt. 
xvi. 26; Mark viii. 36, δεδεμένος τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὰς χεῖρας John xi. 44, 
διεφθαρμένος τὸν νοῦν 1 Tim. vi. 5, ῥεραντισμένος τὰς καρδίας, λελουμένος 
τὸ σῶμα Heb. x. 22, πληροῦσθαι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης, τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν Phil. 
i. 11 ; Col. i. 9 (Eph. i. 23 must be taken as Middle i.e. actively), 
περίκειμαι (equiv. to περιτέθειμαι according to B. § 109 p. 198) ἅλυσιν 


190 VERBAL ADJECTIVES. 2b [8 134, 


Acts xxviii. 20, ἀσθένειαν Heb. v. 2, κεκαυτηριασμένος τὴν συνείδησιν 
1 Tim. iv. 2, κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον Gal. vi. 6, particularly πιστεύεσθαι 
(to be entrusted with) e.g. τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ κήρυγμα, τὴν οἰκονομίαν, τὰ 
λόγια, Tit. 1. 8; 1 Cor. ix.17; Rom, iii. 2; Gal. ii. 7, etc. (but 2 Thess. 
i. 10; 1 Tim. iii. 16 belong to ὃ 188, 4,7) p. 175). The following 
are very free and brachylogic, after Paul’s style: 2 Cor. iii. 18 τὴν 
αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα are changed to the same image, vi. 13 
τὴν αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν πλατύνθητε καὶ ὑμεῖς expand yourselves (your 
hearts), as I do, after my example, for the recompense. See the 
other (Pass.-Mid.) examples under the Middle $135; and respecting 
πείθεσθαι τὰ κρείττονα, οὐδέν see ὃ 131, 6 note p. 150, and 10 p. 152. 

Remark. Luke (in Acts xxi. 8) peculiarly and without similar 
precedent in other writers has written, instead of dvadaveions τῆς 
Κύπρου ... ἐπλέομεν, exchanging the subjects, ἀναφανέντες τὴν Κύπρον 
appeared before Cyprus, as it were after we had allowed Oyprus to 
appear to us i.e. had come in sight of it. Yet the reading of the Vat. 
MS. dvaddavavres (confirmed now by cod. Sin.) deserves perhaps 
the decided preference ; [so Tdf.]. 


VERBAL ADJECTIVES. 
B. § 184, 8-10; H. § 804sq.; C. $§ 458. 682; D. p. 190sq.; J. δὲ 618. 883; 6, § 114. 


165 ΟΥ̓ the two verbal adjectives (in -réos and -rés) the form in -réos is 


§ 


rare. The word βλητέον occurring in Luke v. 38; Mark ii. 22 
Lchm. has the Active construction (τὸν οἶνον). Adjectives in -τός 
include the idea of possibility in an Active and Passive sense (cf. p. 42), 
corresponding to Germ. adjectives in -lich and -bar [ Eng. -ly and -dle], 
as épards, δυνατός, θνητός, παθητός, ἀνεκλάλητος, ἀμάραντος, ἄπταιστος, 
etc.; often also without the collateral notion of power (as among the 
Greeks, too), as ἀγαπητός, γεννητός, γνωστός, ἔκθετος, ἄνιπτος, etc. 

Adjectives in -τός are no longer capable of the verbal construction ; 
hence, for example, ἀγαπητός is only connected with the Gen. 
(ἀγαπητοί pov, θεοῦ), never with the Dative. On the Dative with 
ἀμώμητοι (2 Pet. iii. 14), see no. 2 above, p. 187; and in like manner 
the Dative with yvwords, ἀρεστός, δυνατός, ἀποδεκτός, etc., depends 
not on the form but on the signification of the word. Most of 
them, consequently, have become as respects their signification and 
construction completely adjectives (or substantives, as 6 χριστός, 
ot ἀγαπητοί), just as the ending -ros in other cases also is a common 
formative syllable of adjectives e.g. αἰχμάλωτος, ἀθέμιτος, ἀγράμματος, 
τὰ ἑρπετά, ete. 

Hence it is not improbable that, with the disappearance of the 
verbal use of the verbal adjectives, the N. T. writers, to designate a 
participle corresponding to the Latin in -ndus, have followed Hebrew 


is Ρ he ei hk 


§ 135.] THE MIDDLE. 191 


precedent (see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 791; [Gr. § 131, 1]) and frequently 
taken other participles in this sense. Yet we have a right to assert 
this probably only of the Future Part. (Heb. iii. 5 εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν 
λαληθησομένων), or of the Present in which according to ὃ 137, 11 


p. 206 the notion of futurity or of conatus is already included, — most — 


plainly in Heb. xii. 18 προσεληλύθατε ψηλαφωμένῳ (dpe) καὶ 
κεκαυμένῳ πυρί; (see the other examples ibid.). Other participles, as 
κατεγνωσμένος Gal. ii. 11, ἐβδελυγμένος Rev. xxi. 8, ἐκριζωθέντα Jude 
12, which are also so explained sometimes, are to be taken strictly 
according to their form as Past Part., and to be translated accordingly. 


~ Toe MIDDLE. 
B. § 185, 1-8; H. δ 687 sq. 694 ο.; C. §578sqq.; Ὁ. ὃ 482sq.; J. ὃ 862 sq. 

That Middle verbs, if translated by us reflexively or intrans- 
itively, give the preference in the N. T., as in later writers 
generally, to the Passive form of the Aorist rather than 
the Middle, has already (p. 51 sq.) been taught. The number 
of these Passive Aorists (for the most part to be translated 
intransitively) is very great; and examples, therefore, are to 
be found everywhere in multitudes. With many verbs, never- 
theless, the Middle form of the Aorist had already come into 
such universal use (e.g. with φυλάσσεσθαι, κομίζεσθαι, αἰτεῖσθαι, 
ἔχεσθαι and all its compounds), that even in the N. T. no 
contrary examples of the Aorist formation are extant. 


B. § 135, 4; H. §538a.; Ὁ. p. 484; cf. J. ὃ 583. 


Instances of the Object-Accusative with verbs which in the 166 


Active admit the construction of two Accusatives, are found most 


frequently with év- and ἐκδύεσθαι, ---- ἀπ that both in the proper 


sense (χιτῶνα, ἔνδυμα, τρίχας καμήλου) and in the tropical (Ἰησοῦν, τὸν 
νέον ἄνθρωπον, ἀφθαρσίαν, τὸν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύνης), ---- ἐνδιδύσκε- 
σθαι ἱμάτιον, πορφύραν, περιβάλλεσθαι (according to § 181,6 
Ρ. 149) ἱμάτιον, στολάς, etc. often in the Apocalypse, and according to 
the same analogy περιζώννυσθαι as well with the Acc. of the 
girding object: (ζώνην) as of the girded (ὀσφύν), and likewise ὑποδεῖσθαι 
σανδάλια and πόδας. On all these see the lexicons. Exceptions are 
rare; only ἀμφιίννυσθαι and περιβάλλεσθαι permit (like our to wrap 
one’s self in, clothed with) the construction with ἐν: Matt. xi. 8; 
Luke vii. 25; Rev. iii. 5 (without ἐν iv. 4 Lchm.). 


B. § 185, 5; H. 88 544.a. 687; C. § 579; D. p. 486; J. § 549aq. 
The number of verbs which in the Middle acquire a new 
transitive sense, and accordingly govern also a new Object- 


2 


167 


192 THE MIDDLE. [8185 


Accusative, is likewise very considerable. The following 
deserve notice in this respect as peculiar: 

ἐπαισχύνεσθαί τινα to be ashamed of (shame one’s self before) 
any one Mark viii. 38, etc., analogous to which ἐντρέπεσθαι also 
in the same sense (which arose from the signification of the Active 
to make ashamed, intimidate, abash, 1 Cor. iv. 14) as in later writers 
(Polyb.) is regularly joined to the Acc. Matt. xxi. 37, etc.; in earlier 
writers the Middle is current in the sense to give heed to, and accord- 
ingly in connection with the Genitive (see Pape); ἀποστραφῆιαί. 
τινα to turn one’s self away from one, shun him, 2 Tim.i.15; φυλάσ- 
σεσθαι (to be on one’s guard against) is indeed as usual joined to 
the Acc. in Acts xxi. 25; 2 Tim. iv. 15, but more in accordance with 
N. T. usage, as with the Active φυλάσσειν in the sense of to preserve 
from etc. (2 Thess. iii. 3 θεὸς ὑμᾶς φυλάξει ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ) and other 
verbs of similar meaning (see § 147, 3 p. 323), is the construction 
with ἀπό, as Luke xii. 15 φυλάσσεσθε ἀπὸ πάσης πλεονεξίας, for which 
we have in 1 John v. 21 φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων. In the 
signification to observe it is used in the Active, even in the N. T. 
Matt. xix. 20; Mark x. 20 Lchm.; Luke xviii. 21, in which passages 
formerly the Mid. was read, as is done still by Tdf. [Treg.] in Mark 
after the majority of mss. [cod. Sin. also]. Φοβεῖσθαι is almost 
always connected with the Acc., but sometimes (after $147, 3 p. 323) 
with ἀπό, Matt. x. 28; Luke xii. 4; αἰσχύνεσθαι ἀπό in 1 John 
ii. 28. 

B. 8186, 6; H. § 689sq.; C. $582; D. Ρ. 486 5ᾳ.; J. § 362, 2. 

The remark that the Greeks employ the Middle form to 
designate an action that takes place in some connection with 
the subject, is performed for his own advantage or disadvantage, 
in general, stands in some close relation to him,—is in the 
main applicable to the N. T. also. 


Among the numerous examples of this signification of the Middle 
in its broader application we may mention — besides the verbs named 
above (2 p. 191) denoting an action done to one’s own body (to 
which yet others are to be added, as νίπτεσθαι τὰς χεῖρας ; ἀλείψασθαι, 
κείρασθαι τὴν κεφαλήν) ----- such as the following: σπάσασθαι μάχαιραν ; 
προσ- εἰσκαλεῖσθαί τινα; ἐπικαλεῖσθαι θεόν, Καίσαρα; ἐπι- προσ- 
λαμβάνεσθαι; περιποιεῖσθαι; ἐνδείκνυσθαι; σημειοῦσθαι; κομίζεσθαι ; 
ἔχεσθαι together with its compounds; further, among those com- 
pounded with ἀπό and ἐκ (B. p. 354), ἀπωθεῖσθαι, ἀποτίθεσθαι, ἀπο- 
λύεσθαι, ἀπομάσσεσθαι, ἀποδίδοσθαι, ἀπείπασθαι, ἐξαγοράζεσθαι, ἐκτρέ- 
πεσθαι, etc. 


ΡΥ 
"a? 


* oe 


— «ὦ 


§135.] THE MIDDLE. 193 


B. § 185, N. 8; C. § 585; Ὁ. p. 488 sq.; J. § 868, 8. 4. 6. 

How exactly the N. T. language could still make the distinction 
between the Active and the Middle forms of one and the same 
verb, can be seen clearly in many cases. Let any one compare in 
this respect in the lexicons the examples of virrew and νίπτεσθαι, 
λούειν and ἀπολούεσθαι, κείρειν and κείρεσθαι, φυλάττειν and φυλάττεσθαι 
(see 3 above, p. 192), ἀποκαλύπτειν and ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι, and of those 
verbs whose Middle is used in a signification essentially altered : ἐπιτιθέ- 
ναι and ἐπιτίθεσθαι, ἀποδιδόναι and ἀποδίδοσθαι, κρίνειν and κρίνεσθαι (δια- 
κρίνεσθαι), αἱρεῖν and αἱρεῖσθαι, ποιεῖν and ποιεῖσθαι ---- the last only in 
a mental reference, as in the phrases μνήμην, λόγον, σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι, 
etc. Yet instances are not wanting in which the Active, as the 
generic form, stands for the Middle and alternates with it without any 
sensible difference (cf. B. § 135, 6; J. § 363, 3 and Obs. 2). Thus we 
find in particular αἰτεῖν and αἰτεῖσθαι, even in close proximity, as Jas. 
iv. 3 αἰτεῖτε καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετε, διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε, 1 John v. 15 (αἰτώμεθα 
.«. ἡτήκαμεν), Matt. xx. 20 and 22, Mark vi. 23 and 24; συγκαλεῖν 
and συγκαλεῖσθαι Luke xy. 6, 9 Lehm. ['Treg.], Acts v. 21 and x. 24, 
etc.; διατάσσειν and διατάσσεσθαι ; for σπάσασθαι μάχαιραν (Mark, 
Acts) Matt. says, xxvi. 51, ἀπέσπασεν τὴν μάχαιραν; εὑρίσκειν 
occurs in the sense of εὑρίσκεσθαι in Matt. x. 39 (ὁ εὑρὼν τὴν ψυχὴν 
αὐτοῦ) ; ἐνεργεῖν and évepycicOa,— although between these forms 
this distinction has been observed by Paul (see Fr. on Rom. vii. 5, 
Winer 258 (242)): that with the Active the operating subject is 
personal,” with the Middle (in 1 Thess. ii. 13 also) non-personal ; see 
the numerous passages in Wahl. But ποιεῖν often stands in the 
phrases before designated where, at least in the classic style, the Middle 
alone was usual; as, συμβούλιον ποιήσαντες ; ποιῆσαι ἔλεος, πρόθεσιν, etc. 

But on the other hand the Middle is, strictly speaking, never used 
without some sort of reference to the subject; (in Acts ix. 39 this 
reference is still intimated, but only very feebly it is true, in the μετ᾽ 
αὐτῶν that follows). In single cases it involves at least a different 
signification from the Active (a tropical or mental); particularly in 
certain compounds, which, because they were used almost ex- 
clusively in the Middle form, have almost become complete Deponents. 
Thus Paul has written in 2 Cor. xi. 2 ἡρμοσάμην ὑμᾶς Χριστῷ, instead 
of the ordinary ἥρμοσα, in order to express the idea of spiritual 
espousal to Christ, iii. 18 τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι (to view in 


1 Τὴ Acts viii. 2, therefore, the reading of the oldest mss. [Sin. also] ἐποίησαν 
κοπετόν is to be preferred with Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] to the Middle form. 

2 That with συνεργεῖ also, in Rom. viii. 28, πάντα was not formerly taken as 
Subject is proved by the important (although protably only explanatory) addition 
§ θεός (A BB Lehm.). 

25 


168 


194 : THE TENSES. [ξ 157 


a mirror), Heb. xi. 40 τοῦ θεοῦ προβλεψαμένου, Col. ii. 1ὅ ἀπεκδυσά- 
μενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας (deWette, to disarm), and many of the 
most current compounds, as ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι, ἀποκρίνεσθαι, ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι, 
ἐπιτίθεσθαι, etc.! 

B. § 185, N. 4; H. § 688a.; C. ὃ 588; D. p. 485; J. ὃ 868, 2. 

A deviation from ordinary usage consists, as has already been 
intimated § 127, 26 p. 118, in the practice of often expressing again 
separately the Possessive and Reflexive limitations strictly 
speaking already comprised in the Middle form; as, συγκαλεσάμενος 
τοὺς συγγενεῖς αὐτοῦ (αὗτ.); ἀπέθεντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν (Acts vii. 58), 
διαλογίζεσθε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν (Mark ii. 8, etc.), ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαι 
τὴν δύναμίν μου (Rom. ix. 17), etc. Where, however, especial 
em phasis required the addition of the reflexive pron. to the Middle, 
N. T. usage harmonizes with the ordinary usage; as, διεμερίσαντο 
ἑαυτοῖς John xix. 24 (quotn.), dveOpéparo αὐτὸν ἑαυτῇ Acts vii. 21, 
σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος Tit. ii. 7. 


(Tue Mipptez.) 
B. § 136, NN.8,4; H. §415; C. $$.575 sq. 588; D. § 860; J. § 865, 8. 

That the Perfect of middle and deponent verbs shares the middle 
(Active) signification of the verb hardly needs mention, since the 
usage is sufficiently established, see e.g. 2 John 8[?]; Acts xiii. 47; also 
in the periphrastic form with εἶναι (8 144, 24 p. 808), Acts xx. 18 
διατεταγμένος ἦν. That single tenses, however, — especially the Aor. 
and Perf. Pass. — of these verbs are also used in the Passive sense, 
see on p. 52. 


Tue TENSES. 
B. § 187; H. §§ 695 sqq.; C. 88 590 sqq.; D. §§ 422 5ᾳ.; J. §§ 8948q.; G. §§ 8 Βαᾳ. 

Among all known ancient languages none distinguishes the 
manifold temporal (and modal) relations of the verb so ac- 
curately as the Greek. It is conceivable that under the 
prolonged dominion of the Greek language and culture, per- 
meating as they did the concerns of all classes, the knowledge 
of the signification of these forms of speech (so essential in 
making one’s self understood) was not only not lost by the 
less cultivated portion even of the Greek people, but also 
became the possession of those foreign populations and 

1 Only ἠμύνατο Acts vii. 24 seems to stand completely for the Active. But we 
must consider that the Active form ἀμύνειν is pre-eminently poetic and the Middle 
came in later prose into such general use that it must be regarded as having be- 


come a Deponent, —as well in the signification to repel from one’s self, as to defend 
(another), to avenge (ulcisei). See Lucian, Dial. Mort. 13, 6 ; Jup. trag. 37. 


§ 137.] THE TENSES. | 195 


individuals that made the Greek tongue their own. Had the 
Jews and others become acquainted with this foreign tongue 169 
only through the medium of the written langtage, not through 
contact with people who spoke Greek. themselves, or had the 
adoption of the language taken place suddenly and not before 
the time when the N. T. books were composed, instead of 
gradually and centuries earlier, there would be greater reason. 
than there is for the assertion that the N. T. writers in the 
use of the Greek tenses labored under a degree of uncertainty, 
fostered by the well-known poverty of the Hebrew tongue in 
this respect; or even if they had employed exclusively only 
certain Greek temporal forms and avoided others, we might 
assume at all events the possibility of such a supposition. »We 
see, however, that the N. T. writers, even those less practised 
in the use of language, avail themselves with great assurance 
of the whole treasure of the Greek temporal forms — Active, 
Passive, and Middle. Obscurity and uncertainty of thought 
occasions necessarily a diminished facility in the employment 
of the corresponding forms of speech. That this is the case, 
for example, with respect to the Moods, particularly the 
Optative and the Tenses connected with ἄν, will appear from 
the exposition given below. But in the use of the Tenses 
the N. T. writers are by no means deficient in the requisite 
skill. Consequently the so-called Enallage Temporum 
or Interchange of Tenses, which was applied by some of the 
older interpreters of Scripture often and indiscriminately, is 
to be opposed on behalf of the N. T. language at the outset, 
and discarded on principle. Still less does the observation 
that other languages — particularly we ourselves in trans- 
lating — frequently employ different temporal relations, give 
us any right to assume that the writer in Greek connected 
with a tense any other conception than that residing in the 
tense. 


Accordingly, whenever our mode of conception departs from the 
tense employed, it is our business to transfer ourselves to the position 
of the writer, and take pains in every case to apprehend the temporal 
relation which corresponds to the tense he used, and, if possible, 
to reproduce it. This, too, thanks to the more recent judicious 
criticism and thorough philological study, has already been done by 
most modern interpreters; and thus a multitude of absurdities have. 


196 AORIST AND PERFECT. [§ 137. 


been removed from the interpretation of the -N. T. We can ac- 
cordingly dispense here with an extended refutation of those gram- 
matical errors the more readily, as the scientific treatment of the 
Greek language adopted at the present day universally in the schools 
secures at the outset the inexperienced (and consequently still impartial) 
reader of the N. T. from errors of the sort. Whoever, therefore, out 
of professional interest wishes to obtain a closer acquaintance with 
them, must be referred to the commentaries or to the ample 

170 collection of them in Winer § 40. Yet no one will be disposed to 
insist that consistency in the maintenance of this position be carried 
so far 88" to forbid us to recognize the least inaccuracy in expression 
or deviation from ordinary usage; on the contrary, to exhibit such 
anomalies is especially the object of this section; only we shall see 
in them, rather, a product of the unconstrained phraseology of 
the people or an illegitimate extension of a Greek form of thought, 
and not an (immediate) influence of a foreign idiom. 


B. $187, land 2; C. $605d.; J. $399, 2sq.; G. § 17. 

2 The distinction established in the general Grammars between 
the Perfect, as a tense having a present reference, and the 
Aorist, as a narrative tense, holds completely in the N. T., as 
every attentive reader can convince himself by comparing the 
verbal forms which occur on every page. It may suffice here, 
therefore, to adduce a few passages in which both tenses have 
clearly preserved their proper force when united in a single 
sentence: Col. i. 16 ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα .... εἴτε θρόνοι 
εἴτε κυριότητες .. ." τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, 
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων etc., 1 John i. 2 ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, 
καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν, Mark xv. 44 Πιλάτος ἐθαύμασεν 
εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκεν, καὶ ... ἐπηρώτησεν (τὸν KevTUplwva) εἰ 
πάλαι ἀπέθανεν, Acts xxi. 28 “Ελληνας εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τὸ 
ἱερὸν καὶ κεκοίνωκεν τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον, John viii. 40 (ζητεῦτέ 
με ἀποκτεῖναι) ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα, ἣν ἤκουσα παρὰ 
τοῦ θεοῦ. See more examples of the sort in Winer 272 (255). 

If, nevertheless, Perfects are sometimes used in a purely 
Aoristic force, that is something which not only took place in 
Greek authors (Bhdy. p. 379), but has its natural foundation 11) in 
the well-known usage by virtue of which Presents so frequently 
take the place of the Aorist in narration (see B. § 137, N. 7; H. § 699; 
C. § 609; Ὁ. p. 405; J. ὃ 395, 2; 6. p. 6, and as examples of this 
Present from the N. T. John i. 44; xx. 4-6; Acts x. 1], ete.), 

- and 2) in the deterioration of the later language, in which (per- 


τύ a ν εν ᾿. 


§ 137.] PERFECT AND AORIST. 197 


haps in consequence of the influence of the Latin) the use of the 
Perfect as an historic tense, even by poets, becomes more and more 
frequent; see the list from Plutarch in Wytt. adnot. p. 412 54... 
from Nonnus in Lehrs quaest. epp. p. 274. The examples from the 
N. T. which belong here are, however, almost all of such a nature 
that the Perfects stand in connection with (preceding) Aorists, so 
that a narrative character was thereby impressed upon the passage as 
it were in advance: (cf. Dem. Hal. p. 84 ἐψηφίσαντο καὶ ὡμολογήκασιν, 
Ach. Tat. p. 100, 33 ed. Jacobs ; Luc. Deor. dial. 19. 1, etc.) Rev. v. 7 
καὶ ἦλθεν Kal εἴληφεν (τὸ βιβλίον), Viii. 4sq. καὶ ἀνέβη ὁ καπνὸς ... 
καὶ εἴληφεν... καὶ ἐγέμισεν, 2 Cor. xi. 25; Heb. xi. 28; also with the 
participle: Matt. xxv. 24 6 τὸ ἐν τάλαντον εἰληφώς, for which previously 
(vs. 20) λαβών was used. 

It is therefore more correct certainly, in many passages of the kind, 
not to seek out laboriously any subtile distinction in the temporal 
reference of these two tenses, as in Jas. i. 24 where in ἀπελήλυθεν 171 
some have wanted to assume a protracted stay in contrast with κατε- 
νόησεν and ἐπελάθετο (see further on this passage in 8 below, p. 202), 
Luke iy. 18 where ἀπέσταλκεν in contrast with ἔχρισεν is said to sig- 
nify continuance to the present time; nor is it allowable in Heb. xi. 
17 to find in the Perf. προσενήνοχεν (in contrast with the Aorists in 
vss. 4, 5, 7, 11, etc.) the expression of an act not yet completed, 
which would agree least of all with the Perfect; see de Wette. 


Β. § 187, 8; H. § 706; C. § 605; Ὁ. p.419; J. § 404; G. p. 25, 

That on the other hand the Aorist may stand for the 3 
Perfect, has been denied indeed by many grammarians in 
reference to ordinary Greek usage, and by Winer 276 (259) 
in reference to the N.T. also; yet with too little qualification. 
As in so many other instances (cf. ὃ 132, 2 p. 156) the question 
depends simply upon our connecting the correct idea with the 
grammatical terminology. That is to say, inasmuch as the 
relation of time expressed by the Perfect is compounded, as it 
were, of that of the Aorist and that of the Present — the action 
having its beginning in the past (Aorist) but extending either 
itself or in its effects down to the time being (Present), —in 
cases where the Aorist is used in the sense of the Perfect we 
must take this view of the matter: that the Aorist was not 
intended to express both relations of the Perfect at once, but 
that the writer for the moment withdraws from the present 
and places himself in the past, consequently in the position of 
anarrator. This p¢sition is uniformly the most natural for the 


198 PERFECT AND AORIST. [§ 187. 


act of composition; and from it there results of itself, if not a 
positive aversion to the Perfect, yet a greater preference for 
the Aorist. The continuance of the action, therefore, and its 
working down to the present time, resides, not indeed in 
the tense, but in the connection; and the necessary 
insertion of this relation is left in every case to the hearer. 
The following may serve as examples: Matt. xxiii. 2 ἐπὶ τῆς Μωυσέως 
καθέδρας ἐκάθισαν οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι seated themselves (and 
still sit), Heb. viii. 1 ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα ὃς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ ete. (cf. 
x. 12); the common O. T. quotation (Matt. iii. 17 etc.) οὗτός ἐστιν ... 
ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα. In Mark iii. 21 ἐξέστη corresponds closely to the 
Presents following (ἔχει, ἐκβάλλει), so that certainly we are not to think 
of a merely transient ἔκστασις ; Col. i. 21 νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατήλλαξεν 
(ἀποκατηλλάγητε Lchm.), deWette : hat etc. verséhnet, [A.V. now hath 
he reconciled]. In John xv. 8 ἐν τούτῳ ἐδοξάσθη ὃ πατήρ μου, ἵνα καρπὸν 
φέρητε, even ancient interpreters explained ἐδοξάσθη by δοξάζεται, see 
Liicke; xiii. 31 viv ἐδοξάσθη ὃ vids etc. (prophetic Aorist, for δοξάσει 
follows, cf. 4 below). Another example is the common ἔγραψα in 
letters: not merely in reference to previous letters but also to the one 
just written, at its close (1 Pet. v. 12, etc.) ; or, in reference to single 
172 sections of it, at the end of that section (1 Cor. ix. 15, etc.). In fact 
the Present γράφω often stands in its stead (1 Cor. iv. 14, ete.), and 
even the two forms alternate, 1 John ii. 12 sq., at the most with the 
difference that γράφω is employed rather in reference to the entire 
letter, ἔγραψα to that portion of it thus far written (deWette). But 
even this distinction is perhaps too delicate, when we take into consid- 
eration the ancient use of ἔπεμψα (Acts xxiii. 30 ; Phil. ii. 28; Philem. 
11) and of the Latin msi, litteras dedi (Kriiger § 451) ; so that the 
change of tense in the 180 Ep. of John probably arose solely from the 
need of variety in connection with the sixfold repetition of the verb. 
Respecting Eph. v. 29 and other similar Aorists in aphorisms, etc., see 
8 below, p. 201. 

4 There is still another case in which the two preterite forms 
are interchanged in a way which, as respects the sense at least, 
is perfectly indiscriminate, viz. in an impassioned apodosis 
after a conditional clause with ἐάν or e:—the proleptic 
Perfect or Aorist. This case has caused certain expositors 
even to assume an enallage of these tenses and the Future. 
This use, however, is of such a general, rhetorical, nature that 
it belongs not only to every age (see among others Joseph. B.J, 
4, 38,10 and more examples in Mtth. Gr. § 500), but also to 
every language (see, for the Latin, Kriiger § 444 Rem. 1). 


§ 137.| THE AORIST. 199 


The natural tense in such clauses is the Perfect; as, 1 Cor. xiii. 1 
ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ ... γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν etc., 
Rom. iv. 14 εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἐκ νόμου κληρονόμοι, κεκένωται ἣ πίστις καὶ κατήρ- 
γήται ἡ ἐπαγγελία, xiv. 28 ὃ διακρινόμενος ἐὰν φάγῃ, κατακέκριται, 2 Pet. 
ii. 20; and with a Participle taking the place of the conditional clause 
Rom. xiii. 8. On the other hand, the Aorist is used in John xy. 6 
ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα καὶ ἐξηράνθη, καὶ 
συνάγουσιν αὐτά etc. (see further on this in 8 below, p. 202), Rev. χ. 7 
ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, καὶ ἐτελέσθη τὸ μυστήριον, 1 Cor. vii. 28 ἐὰν 
γαμήσῃς, οὐχ ἥμαρτες. A difference between the two forms exists 
only in so far as in the Perfect the continuous and in the Aorist the 
momentary nature of the action comes into prominence. 

Remark. With this obliteration of the difference between the two 
tenses, which later increased more and more, it does not excite sur- 
prise that the Mss. in many passages fluctuate between the two forms. 
With no verb is this more frequently the case than with δίδωμι, owing 
to the similarity of the two forms. Since, too, the context almost 
everywhere permits both forms to seem admissible, according as the 
momentary act of giving or the resultant continuous possession 
is intended to receive prominence, a decision is often difficult, indeed 
positively impossible; and hence the recent editors, as a matter of 
fact, often disagree. Thus, for example, in John v. 36; vi. 82; vii. 
19; xvii. 6,7, 22,24, Lchm. has decided for ἔδωκα [so Treg. in vi. 32; 
vii. 19; xvii. 6], Tdf. [with cod. Sin.] for δέδωκα [but in xvii. 6 Tdf. 
has now adopted ἔδωκα after cod. Sin. etc.]; see besides, the various 
readings on iv. 12; vii.22; xii. 49; xiii. 3,15; xvii. 4,8, 9,14; xviii. 
9,11; 1 John iii. 1; iv. 18; v. 20. Yet here it is to be noticed 
particularly, that where the sense necessarily requires the pure 
Aoristic time (e.g. John xviii. 22; xix. 9, etc.), no fluctuation of the 
sort occurs in the ss. 


B. § 187, N.1; H. § 706; C. § 605; D. cf. p. 420 sq.; J. § 404; 6. p. 25. 

The use of the Aorist instead of the (Latin, German, 
English, etc.) Pluperfect in subordinate clauses, 
especially temporal and relative, is so generally acknowledged, 
that it is hardly necessary to adduce passages in proof of it 
from the N. T.; see e.g. Luke vii. 1; John xi. 80, etc. 

In leading clauses the case is different. Here, since the rela- 
tion of time could not be regarded as adequately defined either by an 
explanatory conjunction or by immediate connection with other parts 
of the sentence (as is the case with subordinate clauses), the form of 
the Pluperfect is incomparably more necessary ; and, as matter of fact, 
the use of the Aorist is found then ir. Greek authors far more rarely 


173 


200 THE AORIST. ca Ig 137 


(see the Grammars as above). Hence, in interpreting the N. T.— 
the language of which had already become completely wonted to the 
somewhat cumbrous form of the Pluperfect (as is evident from numer- 
ous examples) — we shall proceed more safely if we assert such a use 
of the Aor. at the most only where the temporal reference is obvious 
from the immediate context. Yet here, too, it must hold as a rule, 
after the analogy of the exposition given in 3 p. 197, that the author 
where he reports in the Aorist facts that have previously occur- 
red (see especially Matt. xiv. 3sq.) has at once transferred himself 
as a narrator to the time then being, leaving his hearer to supply the 
temporal relation for himself; as is manifest, for example, in the 
passage adduced, from the fact that the writer alternates between the 
Aorist and the Imperfect (cf. 7 below). See besides John xviii. 24 
(and Liicke in loc.), vi. 22sq. It is an uncritical procedure, how- 
ever, when certain interpreters avail themselves of this circumstance 
(very precarious as it is, and suggestive of arbitrary interpretation) 
in order by its aid to remove all the discrepancies which occur 
in different authors relative to the sequence of the events narrated. 
For it is far more probable that the writers, in cases where the tem- 
poral reference of the Pluperfect is absolutely necessary to 
intelligibility, would have made use of it, since the Pluperfect 
form was thoroughly current with them. See in this respect partic- 
ularly Matt. xxvii. 87 (and deWette on the passage), John xviii. 12; 
Mark iii. 16 (compared with the narratives of other Evangelists, 
John i. 43 cf. Matt. xvi. 18), and still other examples in Winer 275 
(259). | 


B. $ 187, 4-6; H. §§ 696 Ὁ. 701. 716; C. $592; D. §§ 426.427; J. §§ 401, 8. 405; G. pp. 7,8, 24. 

H The established grammatical distinction between the Aorist 
as a purely narrative tense (expressing something momentary) 
and the _ Imperfect as a descriptive tense (expressing some- 
thing contemporaneous or continuous) holds in all its force in 
the N. T., as is plain from many passages 6 g. Matt. xxi. 8 sq. ; 
Mark xi. 15 sqq., etc. But since every writer must be left to 
decide to which conception he in narrating the facts will give 
the preference, it is quite profitless to adduce all the examples 
where an Imperfect appears according to our conception to 
be used instead of the Aorist, or, on the other hand, an Aorist 
instead of the Imperfect (see e.g. Matt. xxvi. 26 ἔκλασεν .., 

174 ἐδίδου ... ἔδωκεν). And it would be still more futile, in 
matters which the caprice of the writer alone decides, to try tc 
establish a general difference of usage. 


§ 137.] THE GNOMIC AORIST. 201 


What has been said respecting the Indicative of the tenses mentioned, 
holds, of course, also for their respective moods (to wit, those of the 
Aorist and of the Present). The use of the Participles, how- 
ever, is in so far more precise, that with the Present Part. to the idea 
of continuance that of incompleteness or of contemporaneousness 
(with other predicates) must necessarily be added, and with the Aorist 
Part. that of the completed (real or imaginary) past has sovereign 
control, whether the action be momentary or fill the duration of an 
entire period. (For details see B. ὃ 137, 6; W. § 45, 1.) 

For an example of the Imperfect with the force of to be wont, 
see Mark xv. 6; and of the Imperf. ἐκέλευον, which the Attics prefer 
to use in the sense of the Aorist, see Acts xvi. 22. Respecting the 
Imperfect de conatu see below, 10 c) p. 205. 


Tue Gnomic Aorist. 
B. § 137, Ν. δ; H. § 707; C. § 606; Ὁ. p. 412; J. 8.402; 6. 8 80. 

Respecting this Aorist, commonly designated in the gram- 8 
mars the Aorist of habitude! with the sense of the 
Present (in contrast with the Imperfect), it is necessary to 
make a few general preliminary remarks, as the brief notices 
hitherto given in the grammars do not suffice to make it 
understood. 


According to Moller’s exposition (Philol. Bd. viii. 1) this Aorist, 
used alike by poets and prose writers of every age, can indeed 
express habitualness, but just as well and still more frequently the 
necessity or universality of an action or state; which does not, like 
habitualness, permit of exceptions. Since now this Aorist was 
employed for the most part in general propositions deduced from 
experience, propositions whose contents are valid not only for the 
past but also for the present and the future, the title “Gnomic Aorist” 
designates more correctly its essential nature. Its use in Greek 
occurs not only in similitudes, propositions involving comparisons (as 
so often in Homer), and ideal pictures (Plato, Phaedr. p. 246 sq.), 
but also in abstract, maxim-like declarations founded in practical 
observation (see the examples from Thucyd. and Demosth. given by 
Moller). The Present (strictly non-preterite) nature of this Aorist 
appears not only from its frequent and immediate connection with 
Presents (and Perfects), but also from the employment with it of the 
Subjunctive with ἄν in subordinate clauses (according to B. ὃ 139, 9), 
especially temporal and relative clauses (e.g. frequently in the above 
passage of Plato, moreover in Hom. Il. π. 690; Hesiod. ἔργ. 738, etc.) 


1 [In German, Aorist des Pflegens ; English, Iterative Aorist.] 
26 


202 THE GNOMIC AORIST. [§ 137. 


When, then, Winer 277 (260) asserts that the Aorist never in the 
N. T. expresses what. is habitual, the assertion is well founded so far 
forth as the peculiarity of the Aorist in question is not adequately 

175 described by the feature cf habitualness; but the occurrence of the 
Gnomic Aorist, according to the above description of it, ought at the 
same time not to be denied. For the objection that the whole idiom 
presumes too nice an observance of the laws of classic Greek and 
greater familiarity with them than can be supposed in the N. T. 
authors, may perhaps be decisive for ἃ portion of them, but not for 
all. On the contrary, the employment of the Aorist, as the most 
common historic tense, corresponds perfectly to the character of 
popular expression, which so gladly endeavors to break away from 
the form of abstract presentation and spontaneously falls into the tone 
of narration (cf. 3 p. 197). Observe the form of the Homeric com- 
parisons, or the description of the shield in the Iliad (where moreover 
Imperfects and Aorists continually alternate in the narrative). 

In the N. T. this is the view to be taken of the comparisons in Jas. i. 
10 sq. καυχάσθω ὃ πλούσιος ἐν TH ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ds ἄνθος χόρτου 
παρελεύσεται. ἀνέτειλεν γὰρ ὃ ἥλιος σὺν τῷ καύσωνι καὶ ἐξήρανεν 
τὸν χόρτον, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσεν καὶ ἡ εὐπρέπεια τοῦ προσώπου 
αὐτοῦ ἀπώλετο" οὕτως καὶ ὃ πλούσιος ... μαρανθήσεται. Similar is 
1 Pet. i. 24 πᾶσα σὰρξ ὡς χόρτος, καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῆς ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου " 
ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσεν. Further Jas. i. 28 
ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι τὸ πρόσωπον ... ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ - κατενόησεν γὰρ 
ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπελήλυθεν (see 2 p. 197) καὶ εὐθέως ἐπελάθετο ὁποῖος ἦν. 
From the same source, viz. the requirements of historic presentation, 
proceed the Aorists in Paul’s doctrinal analysis in Rom. viii. 29 ods 
προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν" ... ods δὲ προώρισεν, τούτους Kal éxd- 
λεσεν" καὶ ods ἐκάλεσεν, τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν" ods δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν; 
τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν; hence it is not necessary to assume that the 
last Aorist (ἐδόξασεν) differs in force from all the rest (cf. Eph. ii. 5 sq.). 
Finally, the two Aorists in John xv. 6 quoted in 4 above, p. 199, may 
also, in part at least, be included under the head of the Gnomic Aorist, 
inasmuch as the thought contains an experimental truth set forth 
figuratively, in which the two momentary acts (ἐβλήθη, ἐξηράνθη) 
come into manifest antithesis to the continuous one denoted by the 
Present (συνάγουσιν). In Eph. v. 29 οὐδείς ποτε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα 
ἐμίσησεν, ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφει καὶ θάλπει αὐτήν, the preterite force is retained 
indeed by the particle ποτέ, yet in such a way (as the Presents 
following show) that the validity of the statement for the time now 
current is, at the same time, included (cf. 3 above p. 197). A like 
reference in James ii. 6 (with ἠτιμάσατε) is at least not excluded. 
In John x. 18 αἴρει is probably an early correction for the original 


~ §1387.] PRESENT WITH FUTURE FORCE. 903 


ἦρεν (the first-hand reading of the Vat. and the Sin. mss.) and the 
latter word, therefore, probably ought to have been adopted by 
Tischendorf in his 8th ed. 

If, then, it is evident from the exposition given, that the N. T. 
writers, so far forth as their writings philologically viewed are 
products of Greek modes of thought,’ must have been led by the 
very nature of the popular language to use this Aorist as a matter of 
course when occasion occurred — (and the cases would certainly be 176 
more numerous if the compass of the books were greater, since with 
the present compass they are already pretty numerous), it is also a 
settled truth on the other side, that where the genius of the Greek 
language had no opportunity to develop itself freely, the assumption 
also that this Aorist is used seems to be inadmissible. Hence thé 
Aorists in quotations from the O. T., as Heb. i. 9; x. 5, 6, are not to 
be brought under this head, since in the Sept. translation the foreign 
idiom has exercised, particularly in the choice of the Greek Tense, 
too considerable and unmistakable an influence. On the Aorist 
εὐδόκησα in quotations, see 3 p. 198. 


B. $187, N. 8; H. § 698; C. 8.612; Ὁ. p, 405sq.; J. 8.896; 6. p. 5. 

Of the Presents which include at the same time a Perfect 9 
force (i.e. are translated by us commonly by the Perfect), ἥκω and 
ἀκούω occur frequently (Luke ix. 9; xvi. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 18; John 
ii. 4, ete.); ἀπέχειν in the signification to have received already 
(Luther, dahin haben Matt. vi. 2 ete., cf. Herm. Vis. 3, 18) is likewise 
to be found even in Greek authors, see Pape. That in Matt. ii. 4, 
however, γεννᾶται is not to be taken after the analogy of the 
(poetic) use of τίκτειν, γεννᾷν (see B. l.c.) in the sense of the Perfect, 
but as a pure Present, the context shows; see Fritzsche in loc. 


B. $187, N. 10; H. $699a.; C. § 609; D. p. 405; J. 8 897; 6. p.6. 

Lastly, that the Present frequently stands where things still 10 
future are spoken of — consequently that the Present comprises 
within itself the Future force of the verb, is a phenomenon 
so common in all ages and all languages, that in order to 
describe it we least of all need the unp'tilosophic designation 
enallage temporum. 

In order to set the cases in the N. T. which belong under 
this head in the right light, we will distribute them into the 
following classes : 


1 That this, as respects style, holds quite peculiarly also of the Epp. of James 
and Peter, has often, and with reason, been emphasized by the interpreters. 


204 PRESENT WITH FUTURE FORCE. [§ 137 


a) The idea of the verb is of such a nature that of itself it 
includes the force of the Future. This holds (as in our lan- 
guage) pre-eminently of two verbal ideas: that of coming, ἔρχεσθαι, 
together with its synonymes ὑπάγειν, πορεύεσθαι, etc., and that of 
becoming, γίνεσθαι. As in ἥκω (see No. 9) there inheres a Perfect 
force (I have come, am present), so in ἔρχομαι a Future (1 come, shall 
appear). For both ideas the language contents itself with the form 
of the Present, as that which, participating alike in both temporal 
relations, stands midway between both, including in itself the termina- 
tion of the one and the beginning of the other. That the Present 
ἔρχομαι in all the Moods takes the place of εἶμι (which by the Attics 
was commonly employed in a Future sense, but in the N. T. as a 
Simple verb is not used) has already been mentioned (p. 50) and is 
plain from innumerable examples; as, John iv. 23 ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ viv 
ἔστιν, Xiv. 3 ἐὰν ἑτοιμάσω τόπον ὑμῖν, πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι 
ὑμᾶς, i. 80 ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνήρ etc., especially in the Part. 6 
ἐρχόμενος Of the Messiah Matt. iii. 11 etc., the formula in the Apoca- 
lypse 6 dv καὶ ὃ ἦν καὶ 6 ἐρχόμενος of God, τὰ ἐρχόμενα (John xvi. 13), 
ὁ αἰὼν 6 ἐρχόμενος (Mark x. 30, etc.) of the future. By the Future 

LTT ἐλεύσομαι (Matt. ix. 15 ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι etc., 1 Cor. iv. 19; xvi. 12, 
etc.) the beginning of the future action is placed at a distance, by the 
Present it is placed more in the present (to be sure, not always in 
the immediate present of which the senses take cognizance as John 
xxi. 3, but also proleptically in the imaginary present of prophetic 
vision); see under b). 

For ἔρχεσθαι in the sense of to go i.e. to go away, especially in the 
Gospels and the Rev. (never in the Acts, by Paul, or in the Ep. to 
the Heb.; also not in the Sept.), the provincial (cf. the Egyptian 
papyrus in Mullach’s Vulgarspr. p. 20) ὑπάγειν is a favorite word. 
This word is often used in the future sense —in the Indicative most 
frequently by John, also in connection with ἔρχεσθαι e.g. viii. 14 πόθεν 
ἦλθον καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγω" ... πόθεν ἔρχομαι Kal ποῦ ὑπάγω, cf. xxi. 3; xiv. 28. 
Πορεύεσθαι also is found in the Present like ἔρχεσθαι and used in 
company with it, e.g. John xiv. 2, 3,12; xvi. 28; Acts xx. 22; Rom. 
xv. 25, etc.; likewise ἀναβαίνειν Matt. xx. 18 etc.; John vii. 8; 
xx. 17; προάγειν Matt. xxi. 31. 

It is hardly worth while to adduce examples of γίνεσθαι --- ἃ 
word in which a future force still more evidently resides; as, Luke 
xii. 54sq. λέγετε ὅτι ὄμβρος ἔρχεται, Kal γίνεται οὕτως" ... λέγετε ὅτι 
καύσων ἔσται, καὶ γίνεται, cf. xi. 26; xv. 10; Mark xi. 23, ete. 
Similarly ἐγείρεται John vii. 52. 

b) The Future force follows inevitably from the context. 
Tn this case the Present as the more common and simple verbal form 


§ 137.] PRESENT WITH FUTURE FORCE. 205 


perfectly takes the place of the Future in all languages, and a multi- 
tude of instances can be adduced from the N. T. where not only the 
Present alone has the future force, as 1 Cor. xv. 32 αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνή- 
axopev; but also where (especially in John) Presents alternate with 
Futures without a sensible difference, or where (in parallel passages) 
one writer employs the Present, the other the Future; as, John x. 
4, 5, 12-16, 18; xvi. 15, 16, the discourses and similitudes of Jesus 
in the 14th and 15th chapters ; Matt. vii. 8 Tdf.; Gal. ii. 16 (δικαιοῦται 
-+. δικαιωθήσεται), Matt. xxiv. 40 compared with Luke xvii. 34. 
Further, see those Presents (with the circumflex on the last syllable) 
which have already been adduced (p. 38) in connection with the 
Attic formation of the Future, and still others below, § 139, 3 p. 209; 
39 p. 235; 61 p. 255. If there is any difference between the two 
forms, it is that—but only taken quite in the general—which 
has been already given under a) viz. that the Present is rather used 
if either the commencement of the future action falls in the present, 
or (in general maxims, comparisons, etc.) the statement has equal 
validity for the present as well as the future; the Future, on the 
other hand, is used with actions whose beginning is projected to a 
(definite or indefinite) distance (e.g. John xvi. 13sq.; 20 84., etc.), 
or whose occurrence is not definitely to be expected till after the 
accomplishment of others (expressed perhaps by such general Presents; 
as, John xvi. 19). Yet this criterion is only an approximate one, 
since the author certainly allowed himself in many cases to be guided 
merely by feeling (cf. p. 38); and, for example, even in reference to 
actions purely future seems designedly to have chosen the Present, in 178 
order to portray the more impressively their closely impending 
occurrence, as in Matt. xxvi. 2. 

c) Finally, under this head belongs the familiar antique usage (see 
B. l.c.; H. § 702; C.§ 594; D. p. 409; J. § 398, 2; 6. pp. 5,7; 
and, for the Latin, Kriiger § 446 Anm. 2) by which the Present, 
and consequently in narration the Imperfect, designates the will, 
the mere intention, to perform an act; or, according to grammatical 
terminology, is used de conatu: so the Pres. in John x. 32 (διὰ τῷ 
λιθάζετέ pe; xiii. 6 σύ μου vires τοὺς πόδας; the Imperf. in Luke 
i. 59 ἐκάλουν αὐτὸ Ζαχαρίαν (cf. 60), Acts vii. 26 συνήλλασσεν αὐτούς 
(cf. 27). In Matt. iii. 14, however, in διεκώλυεν the idea of the verb 
actually passed into execution, and consequently the Imperf. is used 
in the ordinary sense. That the same holds true of other passages 
also (as Gal. i.13; Heb. xi. 17), Winer 269 (253) has already noticed. 


As the Participles uniformly reproduce the temporal 1] 


1 After Isa. xxii. 13, where, although the Heb. text has the Future, the Sept. 
(like the German) gives the Present. 


206 | THE TENSES. [8 137. 


reference of their respective Indicatives (see above, 7 p. 201), 
so the Present Part. also participates in the nature of the 
Present that has just been unfolded, inasmuch as, including 
within itself a future force, it often stands for the Future Part. ; 
and thus the number of actual Future Parts. in the N. T. has 
been greatly diminished. 


If then a Present Part. stands in connection with an actual Future, 
from the idea of contemporaneousness resident in the Pres. 
Part. the notion of futurity results of itself; as, 2 Pet. iii. 10 στοιχεῖα 
δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσονται, Luke i. 35 τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον 
κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ, etc. But Present Participles are frequently 
used in a future sense also when not thus connected, particularly if 
the future action they designate takes its beginning in the real or 
imaginary, the absolute or the relative, present,—if the statement, 
therefore, has a validity quite universal. In this sense food is called 
in John vi. 27 unqualifiedly ἡ ἀπολλυμένη ; gold, in 1 Pet. i. 7, τὸ 
ἀπολλύμενον (perishable) ; the hardened and believers are called by 
Paul so often of ἀπολλύμενοι, of σωζόμενοι, 2 Cor. ii. 15 ete.; mortal 
men οἱ ἀποθνήσκοντες, Heb. vii. 8 ef. 2 Cor. vi. 9. The blood of Christ 
is spoken of as τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, Matt. xxvi. 28 (Mark xiv. 
24; Luke xxii. 20); all things (ταῦτα πάντα) in the above passage 
from 2 Pet. (iii. 11), directly after the Fut. λυθήσονται, are straight- 
way declared to be λυόμενα. To the general proposition in 1 Cor. 
xv. 82 (αὔριον ἀποθνήσκομεν) corresponds precisely Matt. vi. 30 τὸν 
χόρτον ... αὔριον eis κλίβανον βαλλόμενον. To these may be added 
also the Present Participles (so far forth as used de conatu) spoken 
of in ὃ 144,11 p. 297. In other cases still, the future force resides 
in the signification of the verb, as in the above ὁ ἐρχόμενος, τὰ 
ἐρχόμενα, τὰ ἐπερχόμενα (10 a) p. 204), Luke ii. 45 ὑπέστρεψαν ἀναζη- 
τοῦντες, 1 Cor. ii. 1 ἦλθον καταγγέλλων, Acts xxi. 2 εὗρον πλοῖον διαπερῶν 
(on the passage) εἰς Φοινίκην, 1 Cor. iv. 14 οὐκ ἐντρέπων ὑμᾶς γράφω 
ταῦτα. Cf. with the entire contents of this section the sparsely 
occurring examples of the actual Future Participle in § 144, 10 p. 296. 


B. 8187, NN. 12, 18; C. 88 599. 643:h.; J. IL. p. 64; 6. p. 21. 

12 Instances of the Perfect Subjunetive, and still more of the Perfect 
and Future Optative (rather rare, moreover, in Greek authors), no 
longer occur in the N. T. 

Of the Imperatives Passive, besides the Present, that of the 

Perfect is in use in the 2d Person (€ppwoo, ἔρρωσθε, μέμνησθε, 

179 πεφίμωσο), but commonly that of the Aorist in all Persons (ἄρθητι, 
βλήθητι, ἁγιασθήτω, γνωσθήτω, φοβήθητε, ete.). 


§139.] THE MOODS. 207 


Tue Moops. 
B. $189; H. δὲ 719 sqq.; C. §§ 618sqq.; 1). §§ 509siq.; J. $§ 410 sqq.; G. Chap, 1. 
While as respects the Tenses the language of the N. T. does 1 
not, in the main, depart from the general usage of the Greeks, 
but, on the contrary, a few minor irregularities excepted, has 
known how to conform to it perfectly, it falls manifestly far 
behind that usage in the employment of the relations of Mood. 
It would be very hasty, however, to draw a conclusion from 
the inferior facility in the use of the Moods respecting the 
N. T. use of the Tenses also. For, exact discrimination in 
the use of tenses is, as has been already remarked, not only 
quite indispensable to mutual intelligibility, but it is far easier 
for the mind of a common man, that is to say, one little trained 
and taught in literature and language, to become familiar 
with a system of temporal forms ready to his hand, even though 
diversified, than to master the Modal forms, regulating and 
presupposing, as the latter do, a more delicate and cultivated 
linguistic sense. The wealth and charm of the Modal expres- 
sions, as they appear especially at the flourishing period of 
Attic prose in the writings of Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon, 
exhibits the complete impress of the literary and refined 
genius of the Athenian people. The finer shades of Modal 
relation disappear more and more the further the language 
departs in time and space from this focus of Greek culture. 
Only the zealous study of the language of Hellenic culture, 
the aspiration after intellectual development in the Hellenic 
sense, could render it possible for later authors, such as Lucian, 
Plutarch, Arrian, etc., to acquire a beauty and finish of diction 
approximating, although never attaining, to that of the 
flourishing period. Since the N. T. authors were far from 
indulging in any such endeavor, but on the contrary, as the 
repositories of a new intellectual movement found themselves 
almost in direct antagonism to it, they were little con- 
cerned with the acquisition (toilsome at the best) of Greek 
phraseology in its more refined development ; — all the less as 
they were primarily interested only in rendering themselves 190 
plain and intelligible to their own countrymen, who, as a 
whole, were certainly far removed at that time from such 
culture. Foreign influences,— partly the general influence 
of the Latin language upon the Greek, partly that of the 


208 THE SUBJUNCTIVE AND OPTATIVE. [$ 139. 


Hebrew, and in particular of the translation of the Bible 
(which is extremely restricted in its use of the Moods) into 
the language of the N. T. writers,—certainly contributed 
here also to the far greater imperfection of expression which 
characterizes the N. T.; for, as respects the Moods, it presents 
no inconsiderable contrast to the language of contemporary — 
in fact, much later — profane writers, and even of ecclesiastical 
writers also. Again, however, Luke’s language, particularly 
in the Acts, is that which employs the Modal relations with 
more certainty and precision. 


THE SUBJUNCTIVE AND OPTATIVE IN SimpLtE SENTENCES. 
B. § 189, m.2; H. 8 Τ20 ο.; C. 8 647; Ὁ. §516; J. § 417; 6. § 88. 

The Conjunctivus dubitativus or deliberativus. 
This Subjunctive is found sometimes standing quite alone in 
all three Persons; sometimes, as occurs so often in Greek and 
Latin, in immediate connection (i.e. without the intervention 
of conjunctions) with the Indicatives βούλει, θέλεις. 


Examples of the Ist Person are, Rom. vi. 1 ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ; 
15 ἁμαρτήσωμεν ; 1 Cor. iv. 21 ἐν ῥάβδῳ ἔλθω; vi. 15 ποιήσω; xi. 22 
τί εἴπω ὑμῖν ; ἐπαινέσω ὑμᾶς ἐν τούτῳ ; οὐκ ἐπαινῶ, John xviii. 11 οὐ μὴ 
πίω αὐτό; of the 2d Person: Matt. xxiii. 33 πῶς φύγητε ἀπὸ τῆς 
κρίσεως ; of the 8d Person: Luke xxiii. 81 ἐν τῷ ξηρῷ τί γένηται ; 
Matt. xxvi. 54 πῶς οὖν πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί; Rom. x. 14 Lehm. 
[Treg.; Tdf. x* dis}. In connection with βούλει ete. it is frequent: 
θέλεις εἴπωμεν (Luke ix. 54), θέλεις συλλέξωμεν (Matt. xiii. 28), τί 
θέλετε ποιήσω ὑμῖν (Matt. xx. 32 etc.), τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν (Matt. 
xxvii. 17, 21 etc.); βούλεσθε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων 
(John xviii. 39), ete. (Cf. the similar construction with ἀφεῖναι in 
4 p. 21.) 

That instead of this Subj: nective the Future should be substituted 
(hence frequently found also as a variant, Rom. vi.15; Matt. xiii. 28; 
xxvi. 17; Mark xiv.12; Luke xxii. 9; xi. 5, etc.) is, considering the 
internal and external affinity of the two forms, perfectly grammatical ; 
as, John v. 47 πῶς πιστεύσετε; Acts iv. 16 Lchm. τί ποιήσομεν ; Rom. 
x. 14 Tdf. x* πῶς ἀκούσονται; Cf. besides, with interrogative clauses, 
61 p. 254, and Lob. Phryn. 784. Respecting the addition of wa 
after θέλεις etc. see 41 p. 236. : 

Remark. Since the Subjunctive in this sense was quite current ip 
N.T. Greek, it may be doubted whether in the N. T. the form of the 
Indicative Present instead of the Subjunctive is admissible, or 
the Indicative if thoroughly established critically can be taken in this 


‘3 7 
᾽ 

" 

ὃ 


§ 139.] THE SUBJUNCTIVE. ; 209 


way. Here belongs the consideration of John x . 47 τί ποιοῦμεν, ὅτι 
οὗτος ὃ ἄνθρωπος πολλὰ ποιεῖ σημεῖα; This sentence is in form and 
substance almost identical with those above, so that it seems rather 
too artificial to assume with Winer 284 (267) a difference in signifi- 
cation between this τί ποιοῦμεν and the ordinary τί ποιήσομεν or 
ποιήσωμεν (Acts iv. 16);-on the contrary, the simplest interpretation 
(which corresponds also to the popular usage, was thun wir equiv. 
to was sollen wir thun, [what do we equiv. to what are we to do)) is 
not only adequate, but may be justified by usage also. For we must 
consider here 1) that the first stages of this use in free conversational 
style are found even in the earlier writers (see Bhdy. p. 396); 
2) that in later writers, or those who had no positive need of accuracy 
of expression, the usage doubtless extended itself still more;’ and 
3) that the form ποιοῦμεν belongs to those circumflexed Presents 
(treated of above, p. 88) which are represented in the vers. Ital. by 
the Future (factemus, in the Vulg. on the other hand facimus, cf. 
ποιῶ in Matt. xxvi. 18 var.). Therefore ποιοῦμεν here is nothing more 
or less than a Present, which, according to § 137, 10b) p. 204 sq., in- 
cludes the force of the Future; and as a trustworthy witness of the 
mode of expression current among the people ought not to be called in 


~ question. | 


- Quite in the same way was the word παραζηλοῦμεν in 1 Cor. x. 
22 taken by a portion of the ancient translations (emulemur not 


_e@emulabimur),—an interpretation which appears to be in no wise 


unsuited to the sense of the passage, although the more recent ex- 
positors (though not Riickert) reject it. Cf. further the Indic. Pres. 
With ἐάν, ὅταν, iva below, 23 p. 222, 39 p. 234. 


B. § 189, m. 8; H. § 720a.; C. § 628; D. $516; J. § 416; 6. § 85. 

Conjunctivus adhortativus. This Subjunctive also 
is very common, especially in the Ist Pers. Plural, as ἄγωμεν, 
φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, γρηγορῶμεν Kat νήφωμεν, ἐπὶ τὴν τελειό- 
TyTa φερώμεθα etc. ; rare in the Ist Pers. Singular, Acts vii. 34 
(after Exod. iii. 10) viv δεῦρο ἀποστείλω σε. The relationship 
between this Subjunctive and a declaration expressed by the 
Fut. Indic. is obvious; hence both verbal forms are united 
with almost the same force in Rev. xix. 7. And in many 
passages where the sense admits of both acceptations the Mss. 


1 Cf. the completely analogous τί ποιοῦμεν in Pseudo-Luc. Asin. 25, (as several 
Mss. give in Luc. Pisc. 10 also); ri δρῶμεν; φεύγομεν ἢ μένομεν ; Alciphr. 1, 11 
Mein. ; Arr. Exped. 7, 11, 2 (where Kriiger rashly emends πράττωσιν and λέγωσιν); 
Lucian 38, 16; 44, 53; 47, 4.14; Acta Petr. et Paul. 45, and the quite common 
use (noticed also below § 148, 10 p. 353) of the Indicative with μήποτε. 

27 


181 


210 THE SUBJUNCTIVE. [ 189. 


(and editions) wever between the two forms, —as particularly 
in the above passage from Acts, where formerly ἀποστελῶ was 
read ; and, on the other hand, the Subjunctive was read where 
now we have Futures: Jas. iv. 13; Heb. vi. 3. 


Also in the much-debated passage (see Winer 286 (268 sq.)) Jas. 
iv. 15, the text of which is very uncertain, the Future seems in both 
cases to deserve the preference (ζήσομεν ... ποιήσομεν [so Tdf. Treg. 
cod. Sin.]); but there are other difficulties besides, see § 149, 8 d) 
p- 362. 
Peculiar to this Subjunctive is the almost pleonastic prefixing 
of the Imperative ἄφες let (analogous to the Latin fac, cave 
182 before Subjunctives, and similar to the use of θέλεις, βούλει in 2 
p. 208), supposed to be a provincialism current in the colloquial 
language of those regions. 


Its use is, therefore, especially characteristic of the Synoptists (cf. 
ὑπάγω in ὃ 137, 10 a) p. 204), and is found as well with the Ist Pers. 
Singular of the Subjunct. following, ἄφες ἐκβάλω let me pull out 
Matt. vii. 4; Luke vi. 42, as with the lst Pers. Plural ἄφες ἴδωμεν 
Matt. xxvii. 49, for which in Mark xy. 36 we find the Impera. also in 
the Plur. ἄφετε ἴδωμεν. Cf. dye ete. p. 70. On the force of the 
verb ἀφεῖναι for ἐᾶσαι (the two verbs are interchanged in the MSs. in 
Acts v. 38) and the common construction with the Infin., see the 
lexicons and § 140, 1 p. 258. 

5 Remark. That for this Subjunctive also the Indicative 
Present could be substituted, even in the more negligent popular 
language, is hardly conceivable: because 1) the proposition would 
then be destitute of any intimation how the Indicative is to be taken 
(which with the deliberative Subjunc. was still given by the inter- 
rogative form); and because 2) here the middle term, as it were, is 
wanting, viz. the Fut. Indic., for which in such cases the Pres. Indic. 
is first wont to appear, see 3 p. 209, 23 p. 222, 39 p. 284. For even 
the Future cannot directly take the place of this Subjunct., since it 
imparts to the sentence at once instead of the Imperative force the 
character of a direct assertion. Hence Lchm. in Gal. vi. 10 im his 
larger edition instead of ἐργαζόμεθα has restored the Subjunct. 
[Treg. Tdf.]; yet the Indic. also, in the proper force of the Pres. 
Indic., gives a sense not to be rejected, see Mey. 'p. 306. The Pres. 
ἐρχόμεθα, however, in John xxi. 3 rests on the principle in ὃ 137, 10 a) 
p- 204; so too ἐρχόμεθα, πορευόμεθα, often in the Apocrypha. 

1To the ἐργαζώμεθα in codd. Vat. and Sin. (so frequently are o and ὦ inter- 


changed). the less importar.ze is to be attached, as both mss. just before give ἔχωμεν 
‘ustead of ἔχομεν which is alone correct. 


§ 139. THE SUBJUNCTIVE. 211 


B. §189,m.4; Η. §720b.; C. ὃ 628; Ὁ. ν᾿. 418; J. 8 120, 8; G. § 86. 

The limitations in reference to the negative Imperative 6 
and the Aorist Subjunctive as its substitute (viz. that 
the former expresses a continued or repeated, the latter a single 
or momentary, prohibition, etc.) are observed in the N. T. very 
rigidly and without exception; see e.g. the Sermon on the 
Mount throughout. Consequently in the Present only the 
Imperative is used: μὴ ypdde, μὴ κρίνετε, μὴ φοβοῦ, μὴ 
φοβεῖσθε; in the Aorist in the Second Pers. only the 
Subjunctive: μὴ νομίσῃς, μὴ νομίσητε, μὴ ἀποστραφῇς, μὴ 
κριθῆτε, μὴ φοβηθῆτε (not φοβήθητε, cf. Matt. x. 26 and 28) 
etc.; but in the Third Pers. the Imperative in both instances: 
μὴ χωριζέτω, μὴ ἐσθιέτω, μὴ γνώτω, μὴ καταβάτω, μὴ ἐπιστρε- 
ψάτω. 

B. $189, mm. 5, 6; H, δ. 846; C. $627; D. § 544; J. 8. 148; G. § 89. 

Owing to the great external similarity between the form of 17 
the (Aorist) Subjunctive and that of the Future, and the affinity 
of the two modes of expression, there occurred, as is well 
known, very early (see the examples from Homer in B. 1.0.) an 
interchange or intermingling of the two forms. In the classic 
period that followed, indeed, the use of these forms was settled ; 
but in later writers considerable vacillation in the employment 
of them is again discernible. Hence the frequent combination 183 
of the Subjunctive and the Future to form a single proposition 
or thought in the O. T. as well as the New;?! hence the fluc- 
tuation, recurring every where (and already remarked in 2 
and 4 above), between the two forms as preserved by the ss., 
especially where only the change of a letter is involved (o and 
w,¢ and 7, see 8 below) ; hence the reproduction and explana- 
tion of a Future form by the Subjunctive in the ancient 
exegetical writings, glossographies, etc.(see Lob. Phryn. p. 723). 

Thus, then, the two forms alternate without the slightest 
difference in signification (ef. 2 p. 208) after the combined par- 
ticles οὐ μή, ἃ combination which is very common in all parts 
of the N. T. (occurring close upon one hundred times). Yet, 
on the whole, here the Subjunctive is the prevalent form ; 

1 E.g. Ley. x.6; Deut. xxix. 13; Isa. vi.10; Matt. vii. 6; xiii. 15 quotn., Luke 
i. 15; viii. 17; xi. 5, 7 Tdf.; xii. 58; xxii. 17 sqq.; xxii. 30; John vi. 37; x. 28; 
xii. 40 quotn.; Phil. ii. 11 Tdf.; Rev. iii. 9; ix. 5,6; xv. 4; xix. 7; xxii. 14,—a 


portion of these, however, allow themselves to be ccmstrued and explained according 
to the analogy of the usage treated of § 151, 9 p. 382. 


912 THE SUBJUNCTIVE. [8.139 


and, moreover, in those cases where the (Aor.) Subjunctive 
differs essentially in form from the Future (ἔλθῃ, πίω, 
συνῆτε, εὑρεθῇ, κλε. σθῶσιν, etc.), is handed down for the most 
part without any variation; far less frequently (and 
often only as an isolated variant) the Future. 

As the Future is often used in the exegetical writings of the Church 
Fathers instead of the Subjunctive preserved in the N. T. text, all 
the doubtfully transmitted Future forms awaken the suspicion 
that they originally served (either as marginal glosses or elsewhere) 
only to explain the Subjunctives, and then subsequently passed over 
into a portion of the mss. Such passages are Mark x. 15 εἰσέλθῃ (Ὁ 
εἰσελεύσεται), xiii. 2 καταλυθῇ (var. καταλυθήσεται [so Sin. without 
py |), Luke xxii. 16 φάγω (D φάγομαι), 1 Thess. v. ὃ ἐκφύγωσιν (var. 
ἐκφεύξονται). The Future form is firmly established only in Matt. 
Xvi. 22 ov μὴ ἔσται without var.; has preponderant authority in Luke 
xxl. 383 παρελεύσονται [so Sin.|]; while the authorities are equally 
divided between the two forms [Sin. gives Fut.] in Mark xiii. 31; 
Heb. x. 17 (cf. Jer. xxxviii. 34), Rev. ix. 6; xviii. 14.1 Cf. besides 
the examples in the following paragraph. 

The identity in signification of the Subjunctive and 
the Future after οὐ μή is established unquestionably: not only 
by quotations from the O. T. like Matt. xiii. 14 ἀκούσετε καὶ 
ov μὴ συνῆτε, βλέψετε Kai ov μὴ ἴδητε (where after the example 

184 of the Sept. the Hebr. Future is rendered by the Subjunctive), 
but also by such passages as Matt. xxiv. 21 ofa οὐ γέγονεν, 
οὐδ᾽ ov μὴ γένηται, John x. 28 ov μὴ ἀπόλωνται... καὶ οὐχ 
ἁρπάσει τις, Xi. 26 οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, Matt. xxiv. 35 
(παρελεύσεται ... οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσιν) cf. with Luke xxi. 33; 
Heb. x. 17 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] ef. with viii. 12; 
Luke i. 15; xxi. 18; John vi. 37 (viii. 12) ; Rev. xv.4. Hence 
the ancient versions give the Future: almost uniformly — 
for which, indeed, the (synonymous) Pres. Indicative often 
appears as a variant, and the Subjunctive without var. only 
in the passages designated in 18 below, p. 218. 

That the N. T. writers employed this construction with οὐ μή also 
to designate that form of statement which classic Greek expressed 
rather by means of οὐ and the Optative with av — see 18 p. 218. 

in other passages still the Future is sufficiently attested, but not the 
particles. Thus in Matt. xxiv. 2 od καταλυθήσεται [so Sin.] has been restored 
instead of οὐ μὴ καταλ. ; and so cught we to read likewise in John x. 28 (οὐχ ap- 


πάσει |Sin. ov μὴ ἁρπάσῃ]), and w th Tdf. [Treg.] also in Luke xxii. 34 (οὐ φωνήσε, 
[so Sin.]). 


§ 139.] THE SUBJUNCTIVE. — 213 


Lastly, it is to be noticed particularly, that in the N. T. only 
the Aorist Subjunc. (and the Second Aor. as well as the 
First, see 8) is used after od μή, and not a single instance of 
the Subjunc. Present is found. For in Heb. xiii. 5 the 
variant ἐγκαταλείπω [Tdf. cod. Sin.] cannot establish itself 
against the received reading (-λέπω [Treg. also]). 


B. § 864, m. 6 and p. 876 Note; C. ὃ 627 ἃ.; J. § 748, Obs. 8; G, p. 79 sq. 

The much contested canon of Dawes, which, however, Bern- 3 
hardy (Syntax p. 402) among recent writers adheres to, 
with certain limitations, and defends,— (according to which 
only the Subjunc. of the Second Aor. can stand after οὐ μή 
and ὅπως in the Active and Middle, otherwise always the 
Future) —— can hardly be carried through as respects ordinary 
Greek usage, least of all, however, in the N. T. 


Bernhardy maintains the admissibility of the First Aor. Subjune. 
only in cases where it differs essentially from the Future as respects 
form (see 7), consequently in liquid verbs, or where the Future has 
the Middle form (ἀκούσομαι etc.), or the circumflexed form (κομιῶ etc.) : 
consequently, everywhere except when the two forms differ externally 
only in the vowel of the Mood. But these are the very cases 
where in all mss., as well those of profane literature as of the Old and 
New Testaments, the greatest uncertainty occurs in the readings; so 
that by the way of criticism, and owing to the great internal and ex- 
ternal affinity of the two forms, absolutely no sure result can be 
attained either in favor of the one or of the other. Hence in- 
dubitable and well-attested Subjunctives of the 1st Aorist, 
such as ἀπολέσῃ, ἀπαγγείλῃς, ἀφορμίσῃ, ἐκπλεύσῃς, δείσῃς, ἀπολαύσωμεν, 
ought to be allowed to pass as proof.of the admissibility of this Sub- 
junctive. In the N. T. also, in almost all cases where the 1st Aor. 
Subjunc. and the Future differ only in the Mood-vowel, there occurs 
so great a degree of variation in the readings, that there was no other 
course left here to the editors, except to follow the authorities, and 
put now one form in the text and now the other. Accordingly at 185 
present we read after οὐ μή 

1) The Future: Matt. xv. 5 τιμήσει; xxvi. 35, Mark xiv. 31 
ἀπαρνήσομαι [in Mk. Tdf. -ωμαι, so cod. Sin.|]; Mark ix. 41 ἀπολέσει 
[Tdf. -cy, so Sin.]; Luke x. 19 ἀδικήσει; John iv. 14 διψήσει; x. 5 
ἀκολουθήσουσιν [-wow cod. Sin. ]. 

2) The Ist Aorist Subjunctive: Matt. x. 23, Gal. v. 16 
τελέσητε; Matt. x. 42 ἀπολέσῃ; xvi. 28 (Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27) 
γεύσωνται ; Matt. xxv. 9 ἀρκέσῃ [Tdf. μήποτε οὐκ dpx., so cod. Sin.]; 


10 


214 THE OPTATIVE. [§ 139. 


Mark xvi. 18 βλάψῃ; Luke xviii. 7 ποιήσῃ; Luke xxii. 67, Acts 
xiii. 41 πιστεύσητε; John viii. 12 περιπατήσῃ ; John viii. 51 θεωρήσῃ 
[-σει cod. Sin.], 52 γεύσηται; xiii. 8 νίψῃς, 38 φωνήσῃ ; Rom. iv. 8 
λογίσηται; 1 Thess. iv. 15 φθάσωμεν; Heb. viii. 11 διδάξωσιν ; 2 Pet. 
i. 10 πταίσητε; Rev. xviii. 23 φάνῃ. In almost all these passages, 
indeed, the other spelling (as Future) is also found, but for the most 
part far more feebly attested, frequently by single or insignificant 
Mss.; several times, however, (e.g. in 1 Thess, iv. 15; 2 Pet. i. 10; 
Acts xiii. 41, etc.) no trace even of a Future form is found among the 
variants. Hence in all these cases both Lchm. and Tdf. [so Treg. ] 
have adopted the Subjunctive form. 

3) The passages in which —the authorities being pretty equally 
divided — the editors disagree, seem to be the following: John vi. 35 
(πεινάσει Lehm. -σῃ Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.], διψήσει Lehm. ['Tdf. Treg. 
cod. Sin.] -σῃ Tdf. [ed. 27), Gal. iv. 80 (κληρονομήσει Lehm. [ Treg. 
Tdf. cod. Sin.], -σῃ Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]). Cf. besides Luke xxii. 34, 68; 
John x. 28, and the Lat. verss. on Rey. ix. 6; xviii. 14. 

Remark. If then, according to the evidence above given (7 and 8), 
the Future with οὐ μή as a rarer form must be recognized along with 
the Subjunctive, yet after ὅπως the Subjunctive has decidedly 
supplanted the Future; inasmuch as, in all the passages (some fifty) 
with the exception of one (Matt. xxvi. 59), the Subjunctive is given 
by the authorities almost without the least variation. The Future is 
found in the Mss. as an isolated reading in Mark v. 23; Acts ix. 12; 
Rom. iii. 4; ix. 17; 1 Cor. i. 29; and in the above passage Matt. 
xxvi. 59 also there are still authorities enough [cod. Sin. among them ] 
for the Subjunctive (the reading of cod. Vat. moreover is uncertain 


[Tdf. gives it as -cwow]), so that even here its restoration seems ‘to 


be required. 
Cf. in general respecting the fluctuation of the mss. in reference to 
both forms, besides Nos. 2 and 4 above, Nos. 22, 23, 31, 38, 61. 


B. 8189, m.7; H. §721,1; Ο. § 688; D. p.548; J. §418,b.; G. 8 82. 

The Optative, which is somewhat rare in the N. T. (see 
11), is still used most frequently, agreeably to its name, in ex- 
pressing a wish, desire; as, Heb. xiii. 21; 1 Thess. v. 23; 
2 Thess. ii. 17, ete. 

Instead of the Optative the Future is once found, yet with 
the particle of wishing ὄφελον, Gal. v. 12. 


Β. § 139,.m.8; H.§ 721b.; ©. § 688; D. ὃ 517; 7..8.418 Obs. 1; G. § 88. 
There are also a few examples of the Indicative of ς 
Preterite with a particle of wishing (d¢eAov) to express a wis 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 915 


which has now become impossible, or, under the existirg circumstances, 
is seen in advance to be incapable of fulfilment: 1 Cor. iv. 8 ὄφελόν 
ye ἐβασιλεύσατε had ye but attained to lordship (by which the 
ironical character of what precedes is brought out), Rev. iii. 15 ὄφελον 
ψυχρὸς ἧς ἢ ζεστός (previously, οὔτε ψυχρὸς εἶ οὔτε ζεστός), 2 Cor. xi. 1 
ὄφελον ἀνείχεσθέ μου ... ἀφροσύνης Vulg. utinam sustineretis (not 
sustineatis), henee the following ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνέχεσθέ μου is to be taken 
correctively (see Meyer); cf. ὄφελον ἐμιμοῦντο Ign. ad Smyrn. 12. 

Peculiar is the periphrasis by means of a clause with θέλω εἰ 
followed by the Aor. Indic., Luke xii. 49 ; see below, 52 p. 246. But 
that clauses with εἰ without an apodosis following (such as Luke xix. 186 
42 etc.) are not clauses of wishing, see § 151, 26 p. 396. 


Β. § 139, m.9; H. § 728 sq.; Ὁ. § 617; Ὁ. ὃ 513sqq.; J. § 797; G. § 81 sq. 

The most considerable departure from ordinary usage as 1] 
respects the Moods, consists in the fact that the N. T. hardly 
puts the Optative in use any longer as a Mood of dependence 
in indirect discourse, particularly after an historic tense. It 
sometimes employs instead the Indicative in independent 
discourse, and that, too, far more extensively than was the 
case among the Greeks; sometimes it includes the dependent 
form of statement which the classic language had assigned to 
the Optative under the form of the Subjunctive. The 
first of these substitutes was essentially favored by the cir- 
cumstance, that in accordance with the character of popular 
language discourses are almost always quoted directly (as in 
Heb. and the Sept.), and a ‘protracted recital in oblique dis- 
course hardly occurs (§ 141, 1 p. 272). The second, viz. the 
greater prominence given to the Subjunctive at the expense 
of the Optative (gradually quite disappeari: 2), may have been 
a consequence of the general influence of Latin on the later 
Greek. The proofs of these statements will not only be 
found in great number below, where we treat of the several 
forms of dependent clauses, but by the reader who notices the 
point will be met with everywhere, particularly in the historic 
writings. 

The Optative as a dependent Mood appears most fre- 
quently in the writings of Luke; its ase even here, however, 
is unmistakably on the decrease. In the apocryphal writings 
of the N. T. it has almost completely disappeared. Cf. 63 
p. 256. : 


13 


187 


14 


216 THE PARTICLE ἄν. ἘΞ Ig 139. 


THE PARTICLE ἅν. 
B. §189,m.10sqq. H. § 878; C. ὃ 618; Ὁ. ὃ 501; J. § 424; 6. § 36. 

The use of the Particle ἄν (so important in expressing 
modal relations) had already become so thoroughly established 
in the literary language, that all that is taught in the general 
grammar respecting its force holds completely in reference 
to the N. T., although in its employment the N. T. is 
more sparing, and several of the more delicate constructions 
(like the ἄν with the Participle and the Infin. 20 p. 219) are 
no longer met with. The following points may be noticed 
respecting the use of this particle in the N. T.: 


B. § 189, m. 12a); H. $704; C. §616b.; Ὁ. ὃ 515; J. 11.98; G. § 80. 2. 

Examples of ἄν with an Indicative Preterite to denote repetition, 
though not numerous, are completely established: Mark vi. 56 ὅπου 
av [ἐὰν Tdf. cod. Sin.] eiseropevero ... ἐτίθεσαν τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας " καὶ 
ὅσοι ἂν ἥπτοντο [ἥψαντο Lchm. Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.] αὐτοῦ ἐσώζοντο, 
Acts ii. 4 ; iv. 35 καθότι ἄν τις χρείαν εἶχεν. This principle appears to 
explain also 1 Cor. xii. 2 (ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε), see more at length in § 151, 
10 p. 383. 


Β. § 189, m. 12 Ὁ); H. $§ 746, 752; C. § 686; D. p. 589 sq.; J. II. 98; 6. ὃ 87, 8. 

The ordinary force of a Preterite Indicative with ἄν, 
so far forth as it denotes the non-existence or impossibility of 
fulfilment of the declaration contained therein, occurs as a 
rule (just as in Greek authors) in the apodosis of the fourth 
case of hypothesis (cf. below, 25 p. 224). 

Yet there are also several examples of this Mood without the 
customary protasis, which in such case is either reserved in 
the mind or finds expression in a different form: Luke xix. 23 κἀγὼ 
ἐλθὼν civ τόκῳ ἂν αὐτὸ ἔπραξα, where the protasis is contained in the 
preceding interrogative clause διὰ τί οὐκ ἔδωκας etc.; similar is Matt. 
xxv. 27, see the following paragraph; Heb. x. 2 ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο 
(cf. ix. 26 in No. 15) where the unfulfilled condition to be supplied in 
thought lies in the ἐπεί (_for otherwise, sc: εἰ ἐδύνατο, see ὃ 149, 5 p. 859). 


Β. $139, m.18; H. §§ 708, 745.a.; C. ὃ 682; D. pp. 541, 411; J. $§ 898, 8; 858, 8; G. p. 97sqq. 

The case here mentioned of the (apparent) omission. of 
av with predicates such as ἔδει, ἀνῆκεν, ἐδύνατο, etc., is by no 
means rare in the later language (nurtured perhaps by the 
analogous 186 of the Latin, debebam, poteram, etc.), or in the 
N. T. also. But it ‘s very erroneous grammatically, and a 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 217 


supposition prompted solely by our modern ideas of idiom, to 
think that the particle in such cases is only omitted. On 
the contrary, we are to conceive of the matter thus: that there 
is no addition whatever of ἄν to the form of statement, since 
not the necessity or possibility of the fact is denied (that would 
be expressed by ἔδει ἂν etc.), but the fact itself. 


Very instructive examples from the N. T. may be added to those 
given in the grammar; as, Matt. xxv. 27 ἔδει σε βαλεῖν τὸ ἀργύριόν 
μου τοῖς τραπεζίταις, καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐγὼ ἂν ἐκομισάμην τὸ ἐμὸν σὺν τόκῳ 
where the addition of ἄν was as necessary in the second clause, as the 
simple Imperfect in the first, Acts xxiv. 19 ods ἔδει ἐπὶ σοῦ παρεῖναι, εἴ 
τι ἔχοιεν πρὸς ἐμέ (therefore, as the Optative shows, not the fourth 
form of hypothesis). See besides, ἔδει in Matt. xviii. 83; xxiii. 23; 
Acts xxvii. 21; 2 Cor. ii.3; Heb. ix. 26; ἀνῆκεν in Eph. v. 4 Lchm. 
[Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.]; Col. iii. 18 ; καθῆκεν Acts xxil. 22; ὥφειλον 
1 Cor. v.10; 2 Cor. xii. 11; ἠδύνατο Acts xxvi. 82; John ix. 33,— 
on which last two passages and some others 27 9) p. 226 below is also 
to be compared. 

A similar difference between our mode of expression and the Greek 
idiom occurs in connection with the ideas to wish, be willing, like ; as, 
ἐβουλόμην (our J should like), Acts xxv. 22 ἐβουλόμην τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 
ἀκοῦσαι, Philem. 13; ηὐχόμην, Rom. ix. 3 ηὐχόμην ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ... 
ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν pov etc., (in these passages the addition of av weakens 
the sense, since then the existence, the possibility, of the wish 
itself is put in question) ;—-and with the predicates καλὸν ἦν, 188 
κρεῖττον ἦν (cf. the Latin melius, aequum fuit, Kriiger ὃ 463): 
Matt. xxvi. 24; Mark xiv. 21 (see 27) p. 226), 2 Pet. ii. 21 κρεῖττον 
ἦν αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι ἢ etc. See Herm. de Part. ἄν p. 60. Paul, 
according to his custom (ὃ 129, 20 p. 186), omits in these cases the 
copula altogether, as 1 Cor. ix. 15 καλὸν yap μοι μᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν ἢ etc. 


B. 8.189, τα. 14; H. § 757; C. § 619; D. p. 544; J. § 428; 6. 8 86, 2. 

The Particle ἄν (after Relatives ἐάν also, see p. 72) is used 16 
in the N. T. by far most frequently with the Subjunctive. 
On the character of this form of statement— (the particle 
belonging rather to the pronoun etc. than to the verb), see 
the general grammars; and on its employment, see below, 
under dependent clauses. 


Β. § 189, m. 15; H. § 722; C. 8. 636; Ὁ. $504; J. § 425; 6. § 89. 
On the other hand, the Optative with ἄν (the Mood 17 
formerly employed so frequently to express subjective opinion 
8 


218 THE PARTICLE ἄν. 1§ 139. 


or softened assertion, which Attic urbanity so readily substitutes 
in place of the most positive affirmations), has passed almost 
entirely out of use. 


In general, this Mood bears so decidedly the peculiar impress of 
Greek diction that. most of the N. T. writers seem hardly any longer 
to be acquainted with it ‘even John does not, for in xiii. 24 the 
Optative is no longer read), and it is still found only in the writings 
of Luke, who approximates nearest to the classic Greek style: —in 
the Gospel (according to the older editions) five times, and eight 
times in the Acts, which small number recent criticism has again 
diminished (see for example Luke xv. 26; xviii. 836; Acts ii. 12 
Lehm. [Tdf. Treg.], xvii. 20 Lcehm. [Tdf. Treg.], xxi. 33 Lchm.). 
This Mood is described in the grammar as a modification of the 
independent form of statement; hence even in Luke it never 
stands after conjunctions or relatives. [Ὁ commonly appears in 
(direct and indirect) interrogative clauses, in which it was especially 
favorite with the Greeks also (see H. below p. 254); in a non-inter- 
rogative direct clause it is found but once, Acts xxvi. 29. 

18 Remark. As a substitute for this characteristic Greek Mood the 
Future is introduced in positive sentences, e.g. in a sup- 
posed case (Lat. dicat, dixerit aliquis) 1 Cor. xv. 35; Jas. ii. 18 ἐρεῖ 
τις, Rom. ix. 19; xi. 19 ἐρεῖς οὖν, v. 7 μόλις yap ὑπὲρ δικαίου τις ἀπο- 
θανεῖται ; further, very commonly in direct and indirect questions, 
1 Cor. xv. 29 ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν ; Rom. iii. 6 ἐπεὶ πῶς κρινεῖ ὁ θεός ; (se. 
εἰ ἄδικος εἴη, see ὃ 149, 5 p. 859), vi. 1 τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; Mark iv. 13 οὐκ 
οἴδατε ... πῶς πάσας τὰς παραβολὰς γνώσεσθε; etc. In many such 
and similar passages the Greeks would probably have used the 
Optative with dv; although it cannot be denied also that the mode of 
expression with the Future has foundation in usage, and strictly noth- 
ing more can be inferred from the aboye examples than a certain aver- 
sion (or ignorance) on the part of the N. T. language as respects this 
form of statement, where the possibility of employing it lay so close 
at hand. | 

In negative clauses the substituted mode of expression has taken 
on a more recognizable form, inasmuch as for οὐκ ἄν with the Optative 
following (according to 7 p. 212) the Subjunctive (or the Future) 
with ov μή appears, —a construction which, as is well known (cf. B. 

189 § 189, 6), was interchanged with the other even by the Greeks. As 
examples of this, may be set down especially those passages where the 
ancient versions either unanimously or in part employ the Lat. Sub- 
junctive: Mark xiii. 2 οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ, ὃς οὐ μὴ καταλυθῇ 
(Vulg. destruatur), Matt. xxv. 9 μήποτε οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν 
(Vulg. sufficiat), Luke xviii. 29 οὐ μὴ λάβῃ (Vulg. recipiat), John x: 
56 οὐ un ἔλθῃ (Vulg. veniat, veniet). 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 219 


Β. § 139, τὰ. 16; H. 8 760; ©. §617d.; J. 85 405, 2; 829; G. $20, N. 1sq. 

The rule, carefully observed in good prose, that in relative 
and other subordinate clauses, whenever the leading thought 
falls in the future, the action which precedes and is completed 
before it is expressed by the Aorist Subjune. with ἄν (and 
likewise in Latin by the Fut. exactum, or Pluperf. Subjunc. 
in its stead), is but seldom disregarded in the N. T. also. 

Examples of the regular construction, especially after relatives 
(ὃς ἄν, ὅσα ἄν, ὅπου ἄν) as well as after conjunctions compounded with 
ἄν (ἕως av, ἐάν, ὅταν), are found abundantly in all parts of the N. T. 
That the freer usage also, that is to say the simple Future and even 
the Present Indic., is found in such clauses is to be expected, since 
instances of it can be pointed out even in Greek and Latin writers ; 
e.g. after ὅστις Matt. v. 39 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] ὅστις σε ῥαπίσει ... 
στρέψον αὐτῷ ete. (Lchm. [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.] jamie), 41; vii. 24 
πᾶς ὅστις ἀκούει μου τοὺς λόγους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτοὺς ὁμοιώσω αὐτὸν etc., 
χ. 82 ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ... ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ete. 

A different liberty, viz. the dropping of ἄν with the Subjunctive, is 
spoken of below: 31 p. 228, 33 p. 230. 


B. § 19, m. 178q.; H. $$ 783, 808; Ὁ. $658.a.; D. p. 543; J. 8 429; G. § 41, of. § 42,8 NN. 1,2. 
The more delicate use of the particle ἄν, by which when 
joined to the Infinitive and Participle it imparts to 
these verbal forms the modal force of an Optative or Indicative 
with dy, is altogether unknown to the N. T. 
It is likewise not found with the Infin. after the verbs δοκεῖν, ἐλπίζειν, 


etc. (see ὃ 140, 2 p. 259), and hardly can the solitary instance of the . 


sort which actually occurs (2 Cor. x. 9) be regarded as a remnant of 
the ancient construction after δοκεῖν. Rather, in the words μὴ δόξω 
ὡς ἂν ἐκφοβεῖν ὑμᾶς the expression ὡς ἄν (which two words were so 
often heard, and by later writers used more and more frequently, in 
immediate connection; see the examples from Lucian in Du Mesnil, 
Stolper Progr. 1867, p. 24) has become for the apostle, as it were, a 
single word with the signification guas?, just as in Greek ὡσπερανεί, 
later aoavei (B. § 151, IV. 3), is used in the same sense. In further 
confirmation of this interpretatio1, compare 1 Cor. vii. ὅ μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε 
ἀλλήλους, εἰ μήτι ἂν ἐκ συμφώνου πρὸς καιρόν, where ἄν also stands 
without any verb. To supply here the Optative, such as γένοιτο, 
in order to connect ἄν with it (as similar phenomena in a few passages 
of the Greek poets are to be explained, see Hartung II. p. 330) 
militates with the apostle’s usage (see 17 p. 217). Hence we must 
supply, either the Indicative after the analogy of 2 Cor. xiii. 5 εἰ μήτ 


19 


190 


2 


290 A. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES. [§ 139. 


ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε), or the Subjunctive according to Luke ix. 13 (εἰ μήτι ... 
ἀγοράσωμεν), and combine ἄν, again in the sense of somehow, perchance, 
with the restrictive particle εἰ μήτι so as to form one whole.’ 

A repetition of ἄν in lengthened sentences, or after the inser-« 
tion of parenthetic thoughts, nowhere occurs. 


: A. ΟὈΝΡΙΤΙΟΝΑΙ, SENTENCES. 

Since the various forms of conditional sentences rest upon 
the general basis given above and in the grammars, it may 
suffice here to assume that the four chief forms of these sen- 
tences are familiar, and to point out the deviations from the 
same which occur in the writings of the N. T. 


Β. § 139, m. 22-24; H. § 745sqq.; C. δ 681sq.; D. ὃ 502; J. § 851; G. § 47 4. 

The first two forms of hypothesis (εἰ with the Indicative, 
ἐάν with the Subjunctive) are by far the most frequent, and 
the distinction given in the grammars is in general applicable 
to them in the N. T. But the majority of the writers were so 
much accustomed to these two modes of stating an hypothesis, 
that they (in harmony with the general observation made in 
11 p. 215) manifestly avoided the third case, εἰ with the 
Optative, preferring to substitute for it one of the first two (cf. 
22 below.) 


See the more extended treatment of this point, and the few instances 
of εἰ with the Optative still extant, in 24-below, p. 223. Examples of 
the first two species, however, are found everywhere. ‘The difference 
between them (described in the grammars) is plainly to be recognized 
in sentences where both are used in close proximity; as, Gal. i. 8, 9, 
where the hypothesis expressed in the 8th verse by ἐάν with the Sub- 
junctive is resumed or repeated in the 9th with greater energy and 
definiteness by ei with the Indicative. So in Acts v. 38, 39. 


B. § 189, m. 25; H. § 747b.; D. ef. § 518; J. § 854, Obs. 1; G. $50, 1 NN. 2 and 8. 
Since the later common Greek writers are pretty negligent 
in discriminating between the two particles εἰ and ἐάν and we 


1 Possible, however, and not at variance with the character of the N. T. ellipses, 
or of Paul’s style in particular, is the assumption that ἄν here is to be taken in 
the sense of ἐάν and (according to § 151, 23 Ὁ. p. 392, 24 Ὁ. p. 394, and § 129, 
23 p. 137) its predicate to be supplied in an altered form from what precedes 
(accordingly here ἀποστερῆτε, or the more general γένηται). The only objection 
to this is the extremely rare use of ἄν for ἐάν (see p. 72). As respects the 
meaning of the passage, however, it remains a matter of indifference whether we 
choose to explain the origin of the ellipsis (which certainly exists here) gram 
matically in the one way or the other. 


§ 139. THE MOODS. 221 


often find in them εἰ with the Subjunctive and ἐάν with the 191 
Indicative (see the references in Winer 295 (277)), we might 
expect beforehand that the N. T. writers also would not keep 
themselves free from such inaccuracies. Of the first case, the 
use of εἰ with the Subjunctive, we find, to be sure, accidentally 
(for cf. 81 p. 228 and 88 p. 230) no example which is quite 
certain ; for in some of them the readings vary, some are set 
aside by the mss. (as Rev. xi. 5 [but cod. Sin. θελήσῃ the 
second time]), some are capable of a special interpretation. 


The most probable is 1 Cor. ix. 11 εἰ... ἐσπείραμεν, μέγα εἰ ἡμεῖς 
ὑμῶν τὰ σαρκικὰ Oepicwpev. So Tdf. reads [eds. 2, 7] with the 
majority of the mss. instead of the former Future ['Tdf. Treg. cod. 
Sin. also] which is found so often as a variant of the Aor. Subjunct. 
(see 8 p. 213). Since strictly considered the Greek Optative would 
be in place here, in point of fact the Subjunctive as its substitute 
(21 p. 220) seems to deserve the preference even on grammatical 
grounds. Further, Luke ix. 13 οὐκ εἰσὶν... εἰ μήτι πορευθέντες ἡμεῖς 
ἀγοράσωμεν βρώματα. The Subjunct. here is not only thoroughly 
established by the mss. [cod. Sin. also], but as a conjunct. dubitativus 
(described above, 2 p. 208) is not at variance with the sense (unless 
perhaps we are to buy). In classic Greek, however, the Fut. Indic. 
would have been used here in preference (see B. § 139 m. 23, and the 
example from Xen. An. 4,7, 8). In 1 Thess. v.10 (οὐκ ἔθετο etc.) ἵνα, 
εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν, ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν the Subjunct. 
stands rather by the attraction of the Subjunct. of the final clause, to 
which it is parenthetic (cf. the quite similar examples in 24 p. 224) ; 
and the frequent use of the double conjunction «ire ... εἴτε, especially 
by Paul (see the Lexx.), caused it, like an unchangeable particle (cor- 
responding to the Latin sive ... sive), to appear even where out of 
regard to the Subjunct. following ἐάντε ought to have stood.! The 
same holds true of the formula ἐκτὸς εἰ μή, which in like manner 
became so established in the signification except, unless (1'Tim. v. 19; 
1 Cor. xv. 2, see on these § 148, 13 p. 855) that it remained unaltered 
even with the Subjunctive: 1 Cor. xiv. 5 ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ. Lastly, 
in Phil. iii. 12 (ei... καταλάβω) εἰ means whether, and belongs under 
62 p. 255, 


1 The use of ἐάντε... ἐάντε in Rom. xiv. 8 might seem to contradict this. But 
how little we are warranted in expecting from the N. T. authors accuracy, or 
even uniformity, in the employment of the conjunctions as well as of the adverbs 
and prepositions, is a point on which probably there is hardly a doubt any longer 
among N. T. critics. Compare, for instance, the following paragraph, and also 
the detailed statements made above on p. 70sq., and the chapter below on Particles. 
Prepositions, etc. 


222 A. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES. [§ 139. 


93 On the other hand, the second case, ἐάν with the 
Indicative, is given so frequently, that it is to be eliminated 
as little from the writings of the N. T. as of the Old. See Tdf. 
N. T. Praef. Ὁ, xxvi [ed. 1 p. lvii]. 


192 It is, indeed, not to be denied that the instances in question almost 
disappear amid the multitude of those that are grammatically regular, 
and suspicion may also be raised by the circumstance that hardly a 
single passage with the Indicative is completely beyond question 
critically. Yet when we consider that in countless passages with 
the Subjunctive not the smallest variation is found (which would not 
be the case if the Indicative were chargeable solely to the copyists), 
it is far more probable that, where a diversity of readings occurs in 
such a number of instances, this fact results from the circumstance 
that the copyists, commentators, etc., early altered the Indicative 
which gave them offence. When we add to this, that in pretty nearly 
as many passages ὅταν with the Indicative occurs, and more- 
over the circumstance that the Latin versions, which render the Aor. 
Subjune. very consistently by the fut. exactum, have the first Future 
in many of these questionable passages, and that the ancient gram- 
marians expressly admit the existence of the usage by their censure 
of it (see Bekk. An. p. 144; Thom. Mag. p. 132 ed. Ritschl), it is 
no longer to be disputed that that lax use of the particles ἐάν, ὅταν͵ 
etc., had at least begun to be practised at the time when the apostles 
wrote. How far we are authorized to set down merely to the account 
of the copyists offenses of the kind in the writings of authors who, in 
earlier or later times, were educated by Greek literature and wrote 
with Greek models before their eyes, is considered by Klotz ad Devar. 
II. 468 sqq. and 690. 

The decision when the Indicative is to be received into the 
text, depends, of course, less upon internal grounds, than upon. 
the weight which is attached in every instance to the au- 
thorities; and hence the more recent editors differ much in 
this respect. 

To avoid repetition elsewhere we will include here at the 
same time the passages with ὅταν and the Indicative: 


The probability of the Indicative is the greatest in the case of the 
Future, which according to 8 p. 213 is so often interchanged with 
the Aor. Subjunct. The most certain instances are Luke xix. 40 ἐὰν 
σιωπήσουσιν [so Sin.], Rev. iv. 9 ὅταν δώσουσιν [Sin. -wow]; less 
certain are Luke xi. 12 Tdf. [eds. 2,7] ἐὰν αἰτήσει [but ed. 8 drops 
ἐὰν, so Treg. cod. Sin.] (Vulg. petierit), Acts viii. 31 Tdf. [Treg.] 
ὁδηγήσει (after codd. Vat. and Sin.), 1 Tim. v. 11 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 993 


ὅταν καταστρηνιάσουσιν [-cwow Tdf. Treg. cod, Sin.] (Vulg. luauriatae 
fuerint); cf. also Matt. vii. 9,10 Tdf. ed. 7 [ed. 8 drops ἐάν with Lchm. 
Treg. cod. Sin.]. The Future is well attested besides, though not 
received, in Matt. x. 19 ὅταν παραδώσουσιν [-Gow Sin.] (tradent). Cf. 
Herm. Vis. 1, 4 (μετανοήσουσιν) ; 2, 2 ete. 

If the examples with the Future, owing to the internal affinity 
between this tense and the Subjunctive, still maintain a certain analogy 
to Greek usage (cf. the examples from the classics quoted by Klotz 
as above), the same no longer holds true of the Present, the em- 
ployment of which (or rather of the particle in connection with it), 
in the N. T. at least, must be accounted for solely by the indifference 
beginning to prevail in reference to grammatical precision of expres- 
sion. Thus, firmly established are 1 John v. 15 ἂν (i.e. ἐὰν) οἴδαμεν 
[ἴδωμεν Sin. ], Mark. xi. 25 ὅταν στήκετε [στῆτε Sin.]; strongly attested 
are Luke xi. 2 Tdf. [ed. 7] ὅταν προσεύχεσθε [-χησθε ed. 8, so Treg. 
cod. Sin.], Rom. xiv. 8 Lehm. ἐάντε ἀποθνήσκομεν, Luke vi. 84 Tdf. 
feds. 2,7; Treg.] ἐὰν δανείζετε [δανίσητε Tdf. ed. 8, so cod. Sin.] 
(Lehm. δανείσητε) ; less so Mark xiii. 7 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] ὅταν ἀκούετε 
[‘ex errore de B’, yet so Treg. ; Tdf. ed. 8 ἀκούσητε, so cod. Sin. Lchm. ], 
Rom. ii. 14 var. ὅταν ποιοῦσιν. 

Lastly the Preterite. Indubitable instances of this are found only 19% 
with ὅταν owing to its prevalent temporal force, so that it stands then 
completely for ὅτε (cwm), as ἐάν stands for εἰ; from this it follows 
that in such fixed compounds the original force of the particle ἄν 
begins gradually to disappear in the N. T. (cf. 20 p. 219). Thus, 
firmly established are Mark iii. 11 ὅταν ἐθεώρουν, Rev. viii. 1 ὅταν 
ἤνοιξεν [ὅτε cod. Sin.]; and hardly to be doubted is Mark xi. 19 Tdf. 
[ Treg. cod. Sin.] ὅταν ἐγένετο, (Lchm. ὅτε). 

The Indicative is found besides in isolated instances with both 
particles, especially in codd. D and Εἰ; as, Matt. v.11; x. 23; Mark 
xiii. 4; Luke xi. 21; xiii. 28; John viii. 36; Acts viii. 31 (Vulg. 
ostenderit). Examples from the Sept. are Ex. viii. 21; Lev. i. 14; 
1 Sam. xvii. 34; Job xxii.3; Ps. xlvii. 4 (Alex.) ; cxix.7; cxviii. 32, 
and there are innumerable instances in the Apocrypha in which the 
particle ay has lost all force. | 


B. $139, τα. 26; H. § 748; C. §631d.; Ὁ. p. 589; J. $855; 6. 8 50, 2. 

That the use of the third form of hypothesis, εὐ withthe 4 
Optative, is but very limited has already been remarked, 21 
p. 220. Of the case in its fully developed form (in the protasis 
εἰ with the Opt., in the apodosis the Opt. with ἄν), not even a 
single instance is found ; on the contrary, in the only passage 
where the Opt. with ἄν stands in the leading clause, and con- 


* 


994 A. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES. [§ 139. 
sequently there was opportunity for the full construction, this 
form of hypothesis was nevertheless not employed. 

The instance (otherwise quite regular grammatically, see B. § 139, 
80 a) is Acts viii. 31 πῶς yap ἂν δυναίμην, ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσῃ με. Even 
when dependent on historic tenses, the Second form of hypothesis 
almost always makes its appearance (pursuant to the general remarks 
11 p. 215 and 63 p. 256); as, John ix. 22 συνετέθειντο, wa ἐάν τις 
αὐτὸν ὁμολογήσῃ Χριστὸν, ἀποσυνάγωγος γένηται, xi. 57 δεδώκεισαν, ἵνα 
ἐάν τις γνῷ etc., Acts ix. 2 ἡτήσατο, ὅπως, ἐάν τινας εὕρῃ, ἀγάγῃ etc. 
Cf. 1 Thess. v. 10 above, 22 p. 221. When the Optative occurs, it 
appears rather in short, fragmentary, parenthetic clauses, as εἰ τύχοι 
1 Cor. xiv. 10; xv. 37, εἴ τι ἔχοιεν Acts xxiv. 19, εἰ δύναιντο xxvii. 39 
Lehm. [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.], εἰ δυνατὸν εἴη (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] ἦν) xx. 
16 Lehm. [Τὰ Treg. cod. Sin.], εἰ θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ 1 Pet. iii. 
17. Both forms of hypothesis, viz. the 2d and the 3d, occur close 
together, but grammatically, in 1 Pet. iii. 13,14. In all other passages 
εἰ with the Optative has the meaning whether, if perhaps, and belongs 
then under H. below p.255sq. In many of the books (in all four 
Gospels, for example) the case is no longer extant. 


B. 8 189, m. 28; H. § 746; C. 8 681b.; D. p. 5898q.; J. § 856; 6. § 49, 2. 

% On the other hand, the fourth form of hypothesis, regularly 
framed (εἰ with the Pret. Indic., and in the apodosis a Pret. 
with av), comes into use pretty frequently, — as well with the 
Imperf. Luke vii. 39, etc., as Aorist Matt. xi. 21, 23 ete., and 
Pluperf. John xiv. 7 etc. ; and with different tenses in the two 
clauses, John xviii. 80 ; Gal. iii. 21; Heb. iv. 8; 1 John ii. 19. 
Examples of the Imperfect (to express duration, B. N. 4) in 
the protasis, in place of the Pluperf., are John xi. 21, 32, cf. 
Matt. xxiii. 30. 


Β, § 139, m. 80b.; Hl. 8 746.a.b.; C. § 681f.; of. § 615; D. p. 540sq.; J. § 856; G. 8 49, of. 54. 
2% The form of the fourth case of hypothesis is so sharply 
194 defined, that the N. T. writers have in the main adhered 
strictly to the grammatical model ; for, an alteration of it would 
have caused ambiguity, and have disturbed at once the char- 
acter of the hypothetical statement. Nevertheless, deviations 
are found here and there : — and that as well 1) in the Protasis, 

as 2) in the Apodosis. 
1) In the Protasis. ΟἹ 66, when the apodosis is formed regularly, 


ei with the Present is the construction given in the protasis: John 
viii. 39 Lehm. εἰ τέκνα τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ ἐστε, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐποιεῖτε 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 925 


av [Tdf. Treg. omit dv; so cod. Sin.]. Most of the interpreters and 
editors, indeed, have taken offence at this reading, and have adopted 
into the text instead the very weakly-attested ἦτε (and thus re- 
stored the construction to the ordinary form), explaining to them- 
selves the origin of ἐστέ in various ways (see Liicke). But ἐστέ is 
not only the correct reading, and perfectly suited to the character of 
this particular passage, but is founded also in actual usage. This usage, 
however, has sometimes not been duly noticed; and sometimes, owing 
to the rarity of its occurrence, it was probably obliterated by correction 
very early by the copyists and commentators. In the N. T. there 
are, in particular, three other passages where the Present is given by 
the most important mss. viz. John xiv. 28; Luke xvii. 6 [so cod. 
Sin. Tdf. Treg.]; Heb. xi. 15 [so cod. Sin. Tdf. Treg.]. In all these, 
indeed, the Imperfect (which is likewise found) has been generally 
received into the text; and yet they, particularly the first two, have 
(in comparison with the other regularly constructed passages) an un- 
mistakable similarity in character to the above passage from John.’ 

2) In the Apodosis,—inasmuch as the particle av is 3] 
omitted with the preterite. Winer, 305 (286), is inclined to 
the opinion, that this omission occurs merely in consequence 
of negligence peculiar to the later writers. This is the case, 
indeed, elsewhere (see e.g. 81 p. 228), but not in the fourth 
class of conditional sentences. On the contrary, such an 
omission is allowable only in fixed cases, which are observed 
also in the N. T., and may be reduced to the four classes that 
follow. 

That is to say, the omission of ἄν occurs 

a) When ay has already been expressed previously in the same 
connection with another predicate. This instance, which often occurs 
in the classics and is founded in the nature of the case, is accidentally 
not to be met with in the text of the N. T.; but it occurs once only 
as a various reading of cod. A in Luke xvii. 6 (ὑπήκουσεν). 

b) When the predicate (or the copula) to which it belongs is also 
dropped, as 1 Cor. xii. 19 εἰ δὲ ἣν τὰ πάντα ἕν μέλος, ποῦ τὸ σῶμα ; — 
agreeably to which vs. 17 also is to be completed; and as an important 108 
variant in Gal. iii. 21. 

c) Where the apodosis contains such a predicative term as cde, 
καλὸν ἦν, ἠδύνατο etc. The omission here (as was explained above, 


1 To show all this requires a more extended examination than can be given 
here. Such an examination, therefore, I have endeavored to give in another place 
(theol. Stud. u. Krit. for 1858, 3d No., pp. 474 sqc.); to this, accordingly, I refer 
the reader. 

29 


28 


926 A. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES. [§ 139 


15 p. 216) is so necessary according to Greek habits of thought, 
that it is only by way of concession to our usage that we can speak | 
of supplying av. That even the copyists of the N. T. books felt no 
need here of supplying the particle, is plainly to be seen from the fact 
that ἄν is no longer found even as a variant. Examples are (cf. 15 
p. 217) Matt. xxvi. 24; Mark xiv. 21 καλὸν ἣν αὐτῷ, εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὃ 
ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος, John ix. 33 εἰ μὴ ἦν οὗτος παρὰ θεοῦ, οὐκ ἠδύνατο 
ποιεῖν οὐδέν, Acts xxvi. 82 ἀπολελύσθαι ἠδύνατο ὃ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος, εἰ μὴ 
ἐπικέκλητο Καίσαρα. 

d) Lastly, ἄν is dropped for rhetorical reasons: where, though 
the fact itself is impossible or improbable, the orator in the vivacity 
of his thought desires to represent it as actually having occurred, or 
at least, as almost taken place. This case (which, as is familiar, is 
not unknown to the Latin writers also, cf. Zumpt § 519, b.) belongs 
rather to the more delicate Greek usage (see the examples from the 
classics in Hermann, de part. ἄν p. 70 sq.), yet it is discoverable alsc 
in a few indubitable instances in the N. T.; most plainly in Gal. iv. 15 
μαρτυρῶ ὑμῖν, ὅτι, εἰ δυνατὸν (sc. ἦν), τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν ἐξορύξαντες 
ἐδώκατέ μοι, Rom. vii. 7 τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ἤδειν, εἰ μὴ ὃ νόμος ἔλεγεν ete., 
perhaps also in Gal. iii. 21 (see the var.). 2 Cor. xi. 4; Acts xi. 17 
do not belong here; in both these passages nothing more than the 
first form of a conditional sentence is to be sought for.? Moreover, ἄν 
is wanting here and there in the mss.; as, John viii. 19; ix. 41; Acts 
xviii. 14; Heb. iv. 8; xi. 15. 

ReMARK. As an appendix to this Section respecting Conditional 
Sentences, mention may be made here of another and peculiar mode 
of expressing the hypothetical relation of two clauses: viz. without 
conjunctions, by the asyndetic juxtaposition of the clauses. 
The clause containing the hypothesis stands then in the Indicative, 
and by Lchm. ['Tdf. Treg.] is commonly (though unnecessarily, see 
Herm. de Ellip. p. 180) distinguished by a mark of interrogation; as, 
1 Cor. vii. 18 περιτετμημένος τις ἐκλήθη " μὴ ἐπισπάσθω, 21 δοῦλος ἐκλήθης " 
μή σοι μελέτω, 27 δέδεσαι γυναικί: μὴ ζήτει λύσιν, Jas. v. 18 κακοπαθεῖ 
τις ἐν ὑμῖν - προσευχέσθω κιτιλ. On the other hand, in Rom. xiii. 3 the 
first clause really contains a question. 


1 The relationship of the statement — put forth as it is here with perfect pos- 
itiveness (hence οὐκ, according to § 148, 3d) p. 347) — to the first form of con- 
ditional sentences is so close, that this last in fact appears in plain shape Mark ix. 
42 καλόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ μᾶλλον, εἰ περίκειται ete. 

2 Commonly two passages more, from the Gospel of John (xv. 22, 24 and xix. 
11), are reckoned among the examples of the omission of ἄν. See respecting them 
both, and also respecting the omission of ἄν in John viii. 39 (26 above, p. 224sq.), 
as well as on the entire subject, my exposition in the Stud. und Krit. as above, 
pp. 485 sqq. 


§ 139.| | THE MOODS. 227 


To be compared with this construction is the prefixing of the 
hypothesis in the form of an Imperatiwe, in which case the con- 196 
clusion is always subjoined by means of καί; as, John ii. 19 λύσατε 
TOV ναὸν τοῦτον, καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὑτόν, Jas. iv. 7 ἀντίστητε τῷ 
διαβόλῳ, καὶ φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, Eph. ν.14. That all such cases belong 
to the popular language (which likes to resolve periodic structures 
into single independent members), and consequently find their analogies 
in all languages, is obvious. Cf. the periphrasis or resolution by 
which Participles become leading clauses, §144, 2 p. 290. 


B. Rewative SENTENCES. 
B. § 189, τη. 82; H. §§ 755sq.; C. §$ 640sq.; J. §§ 826sq.; G. §§ 58 sq. 

On the general statements respecting the Moods in Relative 9 
sentences —[viz. a clause with the Indic. either refers back to a 
demonstr. or is of a general nature ; in a clause with the Sub- 
junct. ἄν associates itself with the relative, and the clause is 
always general; a clause with the Optative without ἄν cor- 
responds to a conditional sentence of the third class, and con- 
tains a subjective complement to the leading thought; ἄν is 
added to the Optat. if the relation of thought spoken of in 17 
Ρ. 217 is to be expressed; the historical tenses in the Indic. 
with ἄν are used where they would be used in simple clauses], 
— we need only remark, that the addition of ἄν (or ἐάν, see p. 
72) in clauses with the Subjunctive is at least the rule even 
in the N.T., as is apparent from numerous examples. Rela- 
tive clauses with the Optative as a mood of dependent state- 
ment are no longer to be met with ; but we find instead, in 
intermediate clauses in the oratio obliqua or after historic 
tenses, either (as so frequently in Greek) the Indicative (Mark 
vi. 45 etc.), or the Subjunctive with av (according to 11 p. 215 
above ). 

If this last case after historic tenses is rare, the reason is solely to 
be found in the fact that the occasion for using it seldom occurred in 
the N. T. writings, in consequence of the choice almost everywhere 
of the direct mode of introducing discourse in the historical books, 
and of the predominantly concrete contents of the Epistles. Exam- 
ples of the Subjunctive with ἄν thus used are, Matt. xiv. 7 ὡμολόγησεν 
αὐτῇ δοῦναι, ὃ ἂν αἰτήσηται (instead of the regular ὃ αἰτήσαιτο or αἰτή- 
σειεν), 1 Thess. ii. 7 sq. ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα, οὕτως ... 
εὐδοκοῦμεν etc. (for εὐδοκοῦμεν 18 --- as the context teaches, the Vulg. 
translates, and cod. Vat. by the augment ηὐδ. intimates — only to be 


taken as the Imperfect) ; cf. the similar cases in 24 p. 224, and Rev 
xiii. 15. 


197 


al 


928 B. RELATIVE SENTENCES. [$ 139. 
Less surprising, and in accordance with the usage given 37 p. 233 
and 33, 3) p. 230, is the simple Subjunctive in relative clauses which 
contain also the purpose after historical tenses, as Acts xxi. 16 
συνῆλθον ... ἄγοντες παρ᾽ ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν Μνάσωνι, see below, 32 p. 229. 

Remark. The Indicative Present is given us once with 
ὅπου av, and has been adopted by Lchm. [Tdf.7, Tr.]: Rev. xiv. 4 
οὗτοι οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες TO ἀρνίῳ, ὅπου ἂν ὑπάγει. Although this con- 
struction conflicts with the usage of the N. T. elsewhere, it is yet 
conceivably correct, especially in the Apocalypse, and finds analogies 
in the examples (quoted in 23 p. 222 sq.) of the Indicative after ἐάν 
and ὅταν. The employment also (so frequent in Greek authors as 
well as in Latin) of the Indicative in general relative clauses 
(Β. ὃ 189 m. 32; J. §§ 826, 4; 827¢.; G. § 62 N. 1) may have been 
not without influence. Cf. further 22 p. 221-above, with the note. 
The Indicative, moreover, is often found as a variant, e.g. Mark iv. 25; 
xi. 24 (Grsb.), Luke x. 22; John ii. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; 2 Cor. viii. 12; 
Col. iii. 23. 

B. § 189, m. 88; H. § 759; C. § 619d.; J. $828, 2; G. § 63, 1. 

Corresponding to the lax construction of the Subjunctive 
with εἰ (spoken of in 22 p. 220 above), is the employment (far 
more frequent) of the simple Subjunctive without dvin 
general relative clauses,—a construction not uncom- 
mon also in the earlier poets (see reff. above). As, however, 
it was not allowable in ordinary prose, and at the most appears 
as a rare exception to a usage otherwise fixed (see Poppo on 
Xen. Cyr. 2, 2, 25), we should err, certainly, in wishing to 
identify it with that poetic construction ; especially since it 
stands in so obvious analogy with other cases in the N. T. (ef. 
33 p. 230), and contains, moreover, in itself its adequate gram- 
matical justification. That is to say, since ἄν falls away only 
after the compound relative ὅστις, just as after ὅσος, πᾶς ὅς, etc., 
and not after the simple ὅς (which first acquires a general force 
by means of ἄν), we discover plainly that the N.'T. authors 
omitted ἄν whenever universality was already sufficiently indi- 
cated by the pronoun, and consequently the addition of ἄν 
might seem to them to be superfluous. 

Here again we find, however, as in all similar cases, considerable 
fluctuation in the readings — (ἄν besides occurring almost everywhere 
as a variant, and still more frequently the interchange, already ofven 
alluded to, of the Subjunctive with the Future taking place, even 
where ἄν has been left standing); so that the critical editions often 
disagree, and we shall probably never succeed alt»gether in reaching 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 229 


certainty on this point. As examples we may take Jas. ii. 10 ὅστις 
τηρήσῃ, Matt. x. 88 Lehm. [Treg.] ὅστις ἀρνήσηται (Tdf. [so cod. Sin. ] 
inserts dv), John xvi. 13 Lehm. ὅσα ἀκούσῃ (Tdf. [ed. 2] ἄν, [ed. 7 ὅσα 
ἀκούσει without ἄν, so Treg.; ed. 8 ὅσα ἀκούει, so cod. Sin.]), Matt. 
xii. 86 πᾶν ὃ λαλήσωσιν (Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.] -covow); and as 
examples of various readings, Matt. v.41; x. 32; xvili.4; John v. 19, 
etc. An example of the Subjunct. and the Fut. together is Luke viii. 
17 Tdf. [eds. 2,7]; of the Fut. with ἄν, Acts vii. 7 Tdf. [Treg.] (Rev. 
xi. 6var.). The Future often occurs as a variant where the Subjunct. 
is received: Matt. v. 19; xvi. 25; xviii. 19; Mark viii. 35; ix. 41; 
x. 11, 35; Luke xii. 8, etc. Now, though here and there the’reading 
which offends against general usage.is perhaps to be set down to the 
account of the copyists, yet this much is certain: that the great 
fluctuation in the mss. would not exist if there had been no mistakes 
in this respect on the part of the authors themselves. For it is par- 
ticularly to be noticed, that there are cases in abundance where it is 
the anomalous modes of expression which are found in the earlier 
Mss., and the regular that occur in the later ; consequently the suspicion 
arises that the latter are Pater corrections. 

Respecting the very common Subjunctive after ἕως ὅτου and similar 
conjunction-like phrases, as ἄχρις οὗ, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας, see 33 p. 230. 


B. § 189, m. 84; H. § 756; C. § 642; J. 8 886, 4; 6. § 65. 


Instances of relative sentences (whether ‘with the Future 
or with the Subjunctive) which at the same time contain an 
intimation of purpose are rare in the N.T., since it employs 
for this end the express statement by means of the final par- 
ticle ἵνα almost invariably. 


John ix. 36 τίς ἐστιν, ἵνα πιστεύσω eis αὐτόν, v. 7 ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔχω, 
ἵνα βάλῃ με εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν, 2 Cor. xii. 7 ἐδόθη μοι σκόλοψ ... ἵνα 
με κολαφίζῃ, ἵνα μὴ etc. Rev. xix. 15 ἐκπορεύεται ῥομφαία, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ 
πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη ; especially after ἀποστέλλω and the like, as Gal. iv. 5 
ἐξαπέστειλεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ, iva ete. 
Yet we may with confidence (guided even by the position) take as 
relative clauses including the expression of a purpose, the example in 
29 p. 228 ἄγοντες wap ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν Mv. (see § 143, 7 p. 284), and also 
Luke vii. 4 ἄξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξῃ τοῦτο (cf. the construction with iva 
after ἄξιος in 46 below, p. 240), Matt. xxi. 41 γεωργοῖς, οἵτινες ἀποδώ- 
σουσιν etc. 

It is to be noticed further, that instead of the regular relative 
clause after such predicates as οὐκ ἔχω (non habeo quod followed by 
the Subjunct.) e.g. Luke xi. Ὁ οὐκ ἔχω ὃ παραθήσω αὐτῷ, the form of 


32 


198 


230 C. TEMPORAL SENTENCES. [8.189 


an Indirect Question is commonly substituted, see 58 below, 
p. 251. On Acts xix. 40 see ὃ 151, 29 note p. 400. 


C. ΤΈΜΡΟΒΑΙ, SENTENCES. 

Β. § 1389, τη. 87; H. cf. ὃ 758; Ὁ. ὃ 641 d.; Ὁ. p. 578 sqq.; J. δὲ 840sqq.; G. §§ 58 sqq. 

δ As the constructions in temporal sentences agree in their 

general principles with those in relative sentences, because the 

- temporal conjunctions themselves were mostly relatives origi- 

nally (as, ὅτε, ἕως, ἐξ οὗ, etc.), all the deviations from classic 

usage touched on above in connection with relative sentences 
will repeat themselves here. 

1) The Optative as a dependent Mood no longer occurs except 
in a single instance, either the Indicative or the Subjunctive (with and 
without ἄν, see 3 below) being substituted for it, as above. The in- 
stance of the Optative used in classic fashion is again from Acts (xxv. 
16) ἀπεκρίθην, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν os... πρὶν ἢ ἔχοι etc. 

2) Corresponding to the use of ὅπου ἂν and ἐάν with the Indicative, 
ὅταν also is sometimes joined to the Indicative; see more on this 
point, together with examples, in 23 above, Ὁ 222. Respecting ἕως ἄν 
with the Fut. see the following paragraph (8). 

3) Temporal particles which express a limit or goal (our 
till, until), ἕως, μέχρι, ἄχρι, together with all their extensions, 
as ἕως οὗ, ἕως ὅτου, etc., if they are joined to the Subjunctive, 
take (as being originally relatives) according to rule the par- 
ticle dv: Matt. xxiii. 39; xxiv. 34,etc. Still more commonly, 
however, they are construed, agreeably to their signification, 
after the analogy of the final particles ἵνα and ὅπως 
below: that is to say, with the simple Subjunctive with- 
out av, even after historical tenses. 


Examples are very numerous, and are in the main also thoroughly 
established critically, while in ordinary Greek prose the construction 
with the simple Subjunctive can be regarded only as an isclated and © 

199 doubtful exception. In order to get a view of the great extent to 
which this usage is carried in the N. T., we give here a list of the 
passages. Thus we find with the Subjunctive, ἕως in Matt. xviii. 30; 
84 Lchm.; Mark xiv. 32; Luke xv. 4; xvii.8; xxii. 34; 2 Thess. ii. 
7; Heb. x. 18 (after a Pret., but with reference to the Present, see 
§ 137, 3 p. 197); Jas. v. 7 Tdf. [Treg.]; Rev. νἱ. 11; ἕως οὗ in Matt. 
xiv. 22; xviii. 84 Tdf. ['Treg.]; xvii.9; xxvi. 36 Tdf. [Treg.]; Luke 
xii. 59 [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin. om. ob]; xxiv. 49; John xiii. 38; Acts 
xxiii. 12 (after an historical tense), 14,21; xxv. 21 (after an historical 
tense); 2 Pet.i.19; ἕως ὅτου Luke xii. 50; xiii.8; xv. 8 [ov Treg. 


§ 139. THE MOODS. 931 


cod. Sin. ]; xxii.16,18 [οὗ Treg. cod. Sin.]; méxptEph.iv.13; μέχρις 
οὗ Mark xiii.380; ἄχρι Rev. vii. 3; xv. 8 (after an historical tense) ; 
xx. 3, 5 (after an historical tense); ἄχρις οὗ Luke xxi. 24; Rom. 
xi. 25; 1 Cor. xi. 26; xv. 25,[Tdf. in Lk. Cor. -ριὶ οὗ with cod. Sin.]; 
Gal. iii.19; iv.19 [μέχρις οὗ Treg. Tdf.cod. Sin.]; ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας Luke 
i. 20; and finally, also after πρὶν ἤ Luke ii. 26 [π. ἢ ἄν Tdf., 7. ἄν 
Treg., ἕως ἄν cod. Sin.], (and in xxii. 34 as a variant for ἕως). It is 
noticeable that here the Subjunctive does not, as in so many similar 
cases, alternate with the Future; but the Future, with the exception 
perhaps of the passage Rev. xvii. 17 (itself uncertain) and a few 
various readings, is well nigh excluded. ‘That this usage stands in 
closest connection with the N. T. structure of final clauses, appears 
on comparing the respective paragraphs (37 and 88 p. 233sq.). And 
since also the omission of av with the Subjunctive in all clauses 
which contain the expression of a purpose has its foundation in classic 
usage (see B. § 139, m. 45 and m. 47), much less here can we think 
of the retention of ἄν with the Future (cf. 23 p. 222 and 31 p. 228), 
—an instance of which, in point of fact, hardly occurs even as a 
variant, with the exception of a very doubtful case in Luke xiii. 35 
Lchm. (see fine print under 4); cf. ἕως ἄν with the Future in Act. 
Petr. et Paul. 63. | 

On the other hand, the connection of all these particles with the 
Indicative Present is not in the least anomalous, since as 
temporal conjunctions, particularly in the signification as long as, until 
(cf. the Lat. dum, donec, etc.), they can be construed also as such, 
consequently with the Indicative; as, Matt. v. 25 ἴσθι εὐνοῶν ... ἕως 
ὅτου εἶ pet αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, Heb. iii. 18 παρακαλεῖτε ἑαυτοὺς, ἄχρις οὗ 
τὸ σήμερον καλεῖται, John ix. 4 ἕως ἡμέρα ἐστίν, xxi. 22,23; 1 Tim. iv. 
18 ἕως ἔρχομαι, Mark vi. 45 ἕως ἀπολύει, Acts xxi. 26, — these last two 
passages are at the same time examples of the Indic. instead of the 
Optat. in an intermediate clause to express an indirect statement 
(11 above, p. 215). | 

4) With all other particles of time which contain no speci- 
fication of a limit, if the construction with the Subjunctive 
occurs, the particle av (ἐάν) is added regularly and 
almost without exception. Hence, always ἡνίκα ἄν, ὁσάκις ἐάν, 
ἀφ᾽ ov av, with the Subjunctive following; and ὅτε, ἐπεΐ in 
such cases become as usual ὅταν, ἐπάν, as Matt. ii. 8; Luke 
xi. 22, etc. 

Only in a single passage (Luke xiii. 85) is the construction of ὅτε 
with the Subjunctive extant and received: οὐ μὴ ἴδητέ pe, ἕως ἥξει ὅτε 
εἴπητε. Yet the Subjunctive εἴπητε here as respects its force man- 


232 D. CAUSAL SENTENCES. [§ 139. 


ifestly depends rather on the idea of end contained in ἕως, as is plain 
from the sense or from a comparison of the parallel passage Matt 
xxiii. 39 (ws ἂν εἴπητε), and ἥξει ὅτε forms a parenthetic insertion 
quite superfluous for the sense (and hence omitted also by mss. of 
repute [cod. Sin. among them). 

5) A faulty construction is that of ὡς in a temporal sense (cum 
Luke xii. 58) with the Subjunctive and ἄν, since in this case, at 


200 least in Attic prose, it either has a thoroughly telic force (but is never 


36 


so used in the N. T.), or signifies as, and then, as introducing a relative © 
clause, takes av according to rule; so in the N. T. in 1 Thess. ii. 7 
(see 29 above, p. 227). Three times, however, ὡς ἄν with the Sub- 
junctive occurs decidedly in a temporal signification (as soon as) : 
most clearly in 1 Cor. xi. 34 τὰ λοιπὰ ὡς dv ἔλθω διατάξομαι (Vulg. 
cum venero), Phil. ii. 23 ὡς ἂν ἀφίδω (Vulg. ut venero), and probably 
also Rom. xv. 24 (see ὃ 144, 7 p. 294); cf. Joseph. B. J. 2.14; 3. 8; 
Prov. i. 27; Clem. Ep. 1. 12 (as ἐάν). For examples of ὡς ἄν with 
the Indic. in the Sept. see Winer 309 (290). 


B. § 189, m. 89; H. $760¢.; C. cf. § 641; D. §580; J. 8. 848; G. 88 60, 62. 

The employment of the Optative in temporal clauses, and cor- 
responding relative clauses, to denote repetition is unknown in 
the N. T. The N.T. language employs for this purpose, either the 
Indicative with ἄν according to 13 p. 216 (see the examples there), 
or the Subjunctive with ἄν, as, for instance, with ὁσάκις 1 Cor. xi. 25, 
26; Rev. xi. 6. The proper particle of repetition, ὅπότε, ὁπόταν, is 
never used in the N. T.; and even in Luke vi. 3 (where Lchm. [so 
Treg.] has given dre after the best mss. [Sin. also]), if ὅπότε is pre- 
ferred with Tdf., it would not have the iterative force. 


B. 8.189, m. 41; H. § 878; C. 8 703d.; D. §583; J. $848; G. 8 67. 

The rule laid down in reference to the use of πρίν or πρὶν His 
observed in the N. T. most accurately: —the Subjunct. and Optat., 
where they occur, appearing in every case after a preceding negation 
(Luke ii. 26; xxii. 84 var.; Acts xxv. 16); whereas in all the pas- 
sages with the Infinitive, the main clause contains no negation. 
Of the Indicative after πρίν there is no example extant. 


Ὁ. Cavsat SENTENCES. 
B. § 189, m. 42-44; 1). §§ 615sqq.; J. $$ 801 sqq.; G. δὲ 80, 81. 

In the construction of causal sentences there is no deviation 
from ordinary usage (viz. that the Indic. is employed when the 
cause is represented as external or objective, the Optat. when 
it is subjective), farther than that they are treated only as inde. 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 238 


pendent sentences, i.e joined to the Mood of independerice. Also, 
when subjective reasons are specified, the N. T. language, 
even in the Acts, employs (according to the general remarks 
in 11 p. 215) instead of the Optative only the Indicative; 
as, Acts vi. 1 ἐγένετο γογγυσμὸς τῶν ᾿Εἰλληνιστῶν, ὅτι παρε- 
θεωροῦντο αἱ χῆραι αὐτῶν, x. 45 ἐξέστησαν, ὅτι... ἐκκέχυται ete. 

The most common causal particles are ὅτι, διότι, ἐπεί, ἐπειδή, less 
frequently ds. These particles are often used as co-ordinating 
particles, and then are to be translated by for (Germ. denn), as Rom. 
iii. 6 ἐπεὶ πῶς κρινεῖ 6 θεός; In the compounds διό and διόπερ the co- 
ordinating force is the prevalent one; hence their frequent construction 
with the Imperative, or the Subjunctive in its stead: διὸ εὐθυμεῖτε 
(Acts xxvii. 25), διόπερ φεύγετε (1 Cor. x. 14), διὸ ἔχωμεν χάριν (Heb. 
xii. 28), ete. 

E. ΕἾΝΑΙ, Sentences. 201 
B. § 189, m. 45; H. p.275sq.; C. § 624; D. p. 597sq.; J. § 805; G. §§ 48 sq. 

The two particles of design ἵνα and ὅπως (never, as )—nega- 37 
tively iva μή, ὅπως μή, or even simply μή (μήποτε, μήπως, etc. ) 
—are joined almost uniformly to the Subjunctive, rarely 
to the Future (88 p. 284). At the same time it is to be 
noticed, that the practice (beginning to show itself even in old 
classic authors, e.g. Thucydides) of using instead of the Opta- 
tive the Subjunctive, even after historic tenses and in 
the midst of narration, as the Mood especially suited to the 
expression of a purpose striving to become actual (see B. 1.c.), 
has become the established rule in the N.T., as may be seen 
from innumerable examples: thus, after ἵνα, Matt. xiv. 36 
παρεκάλουν ἵνα ἅψωνται, xii. 10; xix. 13; Acts xxvii. 42 βουλὴ 
ἐγένετο, ἵνα... ἀποκτείνωσιν, μή τις διαφύγῃ (Rec. ~yor), John 
iv. 8 after the Pluperf. ἀπεληλύθεισαν ἵνα ἀγοράσωσιν ; after 
ὅπως, Acts villi. 15; ix. 2, 24; xxv. 3 παρεκάλουν ... ὅπως 
μεταπέμψηται etc. 

Of the Optative not an example is any longer found; and that 
yvot, παραδοῖ (also after historic tenses) accordingly are not Optatives, 
but Subjunctives, has already been remarked on p. 46; e.g. Mark v. 
43 διεστείλατο iva yvot, ix. 30; xiv. 10 ἀπῆλθεν iva παραδοῖ (cf. vs. 11), 
Luke xix. 15; John xiii. 2, Only in Eph. i. 17 and iii. 16 has Tdf. 
[eds. 2, 7] adopted the Optative δῴη after iva; yet even the acceptance 
of these Optatives would not touch the rule,’ since 1) here the Optat. 


! Lehm. has in both passages the Subjuyctive (once in the form δώῃ, and once 
in the form δῷ, [Treg. Tdf. ed. 8 with cod. Sin.? in i. 17 δῴη, in iii. 16 ¢]); and thus 
30 


38 


234 E. FINAL SENTENCES. [8 139. 


stands in both cases after leading tenses, and 2) the Optat. in both 
passages should be explained as the Optative in the proper sense, viz. 
of a wish (not as the Mood of a dependent statement), and therefore 
be taken rather as independent, very much as in one passage the 
Imperative even is used after ἵνα, viz. in a quotation given without 
verbal change: 1 Cor. i. 31 Wa... 6 καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. 

The addition of ἄν to ὅπως has likewise passed almost com- 
pletely out of use, it being found only in a few passages by Luke 
(Gosp. ii. 85; Acts iii. 19) and solitary quotations from the Ὁ. T.: 
Acts xv. 17 (after Amos ix. 12 Alex.) ; Rom. iii. 4. 


B. § 199, m. 47; H. 8 756; C. § 624b.; J. ὃ 811, 2; 6. p. 68; W. 289 (271). 
The rule which holds in classic usage, that the Future 
Indicative can stand only after ὅπως, never after iva, is not 


202 applicable at all to the N. T.: since 1) according to 8 above, p. 


39 


213, ὅπως is joined to the Subjunctive almost without excep- 
tion; and 2) after ἵνα itself the Future is given (and accepted) 
several times indubitably. See Thom. Mag. p. 186, ed. Ritschl. 


The most frequent and unquestionable use of the Future after iva 
is in the Apocalypse (cf. 33, 3) p. 231) — where it was for the most 
part displaced by the Rec. — frequently in immediate connection with 
a Subjunct. (agreeably to 7 note, p. 211); as, iii. 9 ἵνα ἥξουσιν καὶ 
προσκυνήσουσιν ... καὶ γνῶσιν, xxii. 14 ἵνα ἔσται ... καὶ εἰσέλθωσιν, Vi. 
4, 11, etc. But it occurs elsewhere also, as Luke xx. 10 (δώσουσιν), 
Acts xxi. 24 where accordingly γνώσονται can be also included as a part 
of the final clause, just as in Luke xxii. 30 ἵνα ἔσθητε καὶ πίνητε ... καὶ 
καθίσεσθε (Vulg. et sedeatis), Mark xv. 20 (σταυρώσουσιν), iii. 2 (κατη- 
γορήσουσιν [not Tdf.]), John xii. 20 (προσκυνήσουσιν), 1 Cor. ix. 15 Tdf. 
feds. 2,7; not 8] (κενώσει),͵ xiii. 3 Tdf. (καυθήσομαι), Gal. ii. 4 (κατα- 
δουλώσουσιν), 1 Pet. iii. 1 (κερδηθήσονται), Luke xiv. 10 Tdf. [ Treg. 
cod. Sin. | (ἐρεῖ, al. εἴπῃ), Phil. ii. 11 Tdf. (κάμψῃ καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται, al. 
[so Treg. cod. Sin.] -σηται), and besides as a variant John xvii. 2 ete. 

ReMARK. A few examples also are extant of ἵνα with the Indic- 
ative Present, as above, in the case of ἐάν and ὅταν. Since, how- 
ever, the relation expressed by the Subjunctive or the Future is in- 
comparably more important in clauses indicating purpose than after ἐάν, 
ὅταν, etc. (cf. the Latin constructions after cum, si, ut), all such cases, 
if other considerations do not sustain them or the text is not certain, 
give rise to a suspicion of clerical error in later times, when, as is 


harmonizes with the ordinary construction of verbs of entreating etc., according to 
42 p. 237. But in this case the restoration of the spelling of the Vat. ms. (3¢ 
in both instances) deserves preference. Cf. 62 p 256. 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 235 


well known, the Modal relations underwent a constantly increasing 
corruption. Lchm. has taken the Indic. Present into his text in three 
passages only: it is the almost unanimous reading in 1 Cor. iv. 6 
(φυσιοῦσθε [so Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.]), Gal. iv. 17 (ζηλοῦτε [so Tdf. Treg. 
cod. Sin.]), less certain in 2 Pet. 1. 10 ἵνα ποιεῖσθε (Tdf. ποιεῖσθαι [50 
Treg. cod. Sin.] cf. 42 p. 237). Perhaps it is no accident that in all 
three passages the Present has the circumflexed form, and so 
they can be reckoned among the cases (described on p. 38, in § 137, 
10b) p. 205, and in 38 above, p. 209) where the Present on account 
of its having the circumflex on the last syllable takes the place of the 
Future. Tdf., moreover, has adopted the Present in several other 
instances also: John xvii. 3 (ἵνα γινώσκουσιν [so Treg.]), Gal. vi. 12 
(διώκονται), Tit. ii. 4 (σωφρονίζουσιν [with x*; so Treg.]), Rev. xiii. 17 
(δύναται [eds. 2, 77) ; cf. Acta Petr. et P. 58,81; P. et Thecl. 11 ete. 
Yet the Subjunctive has everywhere weighty authorities in its favor, 
especially cod. Vat. [and in the last four bibl. passages, except Tit. 
l.c., cod. Sin. also], and is consequently to be preferred to the Indicative, 
especially in the last three passages, where the idea of purpose is 
predominant. Only in the passage from John (xvii. 3) has the Indic., 
in addition to the emphatic external attestation, some internal prob- 
ability also in its support; since, as the following section will show, 
John is much less rigorous than others in his employment of the 
particle iva, and its original telic force is often obscured by him, as in 
fact in the above passage: αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ, ἵνα γινώσκουσιν 
σὲ οἴο. Cf. 45 p. 240. 


On THE ForcE OF THE PARTICLE ἵνα IN THE Ν. Τ. 


As iva is one of those particles used most frequently and 40 
peculiarly in the N.T., it seems to be necessary to give a com- 203 
plete survey here of the N. T. use of the same.1 

It is not to be denied, that the use of this conjunction in- 
creased steadily the farther the Greek language departed from 
the classic period, but especially in the popular dialect; and 
that gradually a multitude of relations were expressed by it 
for which in the literary language other particles or other con- 
structions were employed. An indication of the facts is afforded 
even by an external comparison of the Acts or the Ep. to the 
Heb., composed as they are in the spirit of classic Greek, with 


1 Compare with this the expositions given by Winer 457 sqq. (426 sqq.) [cf. 
334 sqq. (314 sqq.)] ; Fritzsche, Excurs. ad Matt. pp. 836 sqq.; [see also Jelf § 803 ; 
Green, N. T. Gram. pp. 170sq.; Ellicott on Eph. i. 17; Sophocles, Glossary ete. 
§§ 88 sq. and Lexicon sub voce]. 


4] 


236 THE PARTICLE ἵνα. [§ 139. 


one of the Gospels written more in the popular phraseology, 
particularly the Gospel of John. This Gospel employs the 
particle ἵνα nearly a hundred and fifty times (his Epp. twenty- 
five times), whereas in the much more extensive book of the 
Acts it appears only sixteen times, and in the Ep. to the Heb. 
twenty times. The Acts still uses now iva now ὅπως ; but in 
John, with the exception of a single passage (xi. 57, where iva 
immediately precedes), the other final particle has wholly dis- 
appeared. 

On a general survey of the clauses introduced by iva, we 
find the principal deviation from classic usage to consist -in 
the fact, that the particle makes its appearance, not only as 
usual after complete predicates — so that the clause as a 
superadded statement of design stands in a certain external 
independence as respects the leading predicate (in order that, 
to the end that), but also after so-called incomplete pre- 
dicate ideas (e.g. θέλειν), and serves to subjoin to them their ἡ 
necessary complement. In good prose, as is well-known, 
the Infinitive is used in this latter case; or after certain pre- 
dicates (as παρακαλεῖν, etc., see B. 8199, m. 45) ὅπως also, 
never (or at least but very seldom) ἵνα. This classic use of 
ὅπως just mentioned may be regarded as the commencement 
of the later prevalent resolution or periphrase of the Infinitive 
by means of Particles. In the place of ὅπως (by which the 
clause at least still preserved the form of an indirect question) 
appeared first of all with such predicates as παρακαλεῖν etc. 
(see 42) the pure particle of design va. Gradually, however, 
the number of the (incomplete) predicates after which the In- 
finitive — formerly the only construction used — was re- 


904 solved by a clause with iva, increased more and more;! so that 


42 


the proper telic force of the particle constantly receded further, 
or was blended with the senses of other particles (as ὅτι, ὥστε) ; 
see below. Even in the language of the majority of the N.T. 
writers this use is by no means still in its initial stage, but has 
already become considerably extended, as will appear from the 
following paragraphs. 

Thus much, however, is still to be laid down as respects the 


1 In modern Greek the Infinitive has at length completely disappeared, and is 
only expressed by the particle νά (which came from ἵνα) with a Subjunctive fal 
lowing ; as, νὰ φάγω, νὰ γράφῃ. See Mullach, Vulgarspr. S. 373. 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 237 


N.T.: that ἵνα cannot as in the later Greek arbitrarily take 
the place of every Infinitive (and so even of ὅτι after verba 
dicendi), but the predicates after which it stands are still in 
the main of such a nature that the dependent clause can 
be regarded as a statement akin to a specification of 
purpose. ; 

This is the case, in the first place, with all predicates which 
can be referred to the notion of a wish, request, com- 
mand, admonition. 


These are in particular the following: θέλειν, παρακαλεῖν, διαστέλλε- 
σθαι, εἰπεῖν,; παραγγέλλειν, ἀπαγγέλλειν, (e.g. 2 Thess. iii. 12 ἵνα ἐσθίωσιν, 
for which previously, in vs. 10, ὅτε with the Imperative had been used : 
ὅτι... . μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω, cf. 51 p. 245), κηρύσσειν, γράφειν (e.g. Mark xii. 
19 where the ὅτι before ἵνα is superfluous, or rather the two kinds of 
statement residing in γράφειν are intimated by ὅτι and iva, ix. 12,etc.), 
προσεύχεσθαι and the substantive προσευχή (e.g. Eph. vi. 19; Phil.i. 9; 
respecting the Optative with it see 37 p. 233, above), δεῖσθαι and ἔρωτᾷν 
in the sense of beseech, ἐντέλλεσθαι, ἐντολὰς διδόναι and λαμβάνειν, 
αἰτεῖσθαι. Here belong, also, all those passages where the sense re- 
quires us to supply the idea of entreaty etc. suggested by iva, e.g. 
κάμπτειν γόνατα Eph. iii. 16, συνιστάναι commendare Rom. xvi. 2, 
διαμαρτύρεσθαι 1 Tim. v. 21, ἀνασείειν τὸν ὄχλον to stir up and entice 
Mark xv. 11; Luke xx. 10 ἀπέστειλεν δοῦλον, ἵνα δώσουσιν with the 
order that etc.; and often in clauses where the demand is expressed by 
the form of the sentence, to wit, by the Imperative, e.g. βλέπε ἵνα 
πληροῖς (Subjunct.) Col. iv. 17, σπουδάσατε iva ποιεῖσθε (see 39 p. 234), 
πληρώσατέ μου τὴν χαρὰν ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε Phil. ii. 2, ζητεῖτε ἵνα 205 
περισσεύητε 1 Cor. xiv. 12, ete. 

For the same reason iva connects itself readily with the ideas to 
counsel, admonish, threaten, adjure, as βουλὴ ἐγένετο, συνεβουλεύσαντο 
ἵνα ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτοὺς, ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς iva μηδενὶ λέγωσιν, ἐξορκίζω σε 
ἵνα ἡμῖν εἴπῃς, συνετέθειντο ἵνα, etc. and in general occurs after many 
other predicates and constructions, in so far as by the action contained 
in them something is to be striven for or averted,—hence after the 
ideas to exert one’s self, to seek, to equip one’s self, to prepare, to be on 
me’s guard, etc., as ζητεῖν, παρατηρεῖν, διώκειν, ζηλοῦν, ἑτοιμάζειν, ζητεῖν 
εὐκαιρίαν, φυλάσσεσθαι, etc. 


1 Εἰπεῖν and other verba dicendi acquire in this way the force of κελεύειν, 
as Matt. xx. 21 εἰπὲ ἵνα καθίσωσιν, Mark iii. 9 etc., and it is remarkable that this 
latter verb, κελεύειν, is never joined to ἵνα, but always to the Infinitive. The 
influence of the Latin construction with jubere may have contributed to this; 
hence also the (unclassic) construction with the Infin, Pass., see § 141, 5 p. 275. 


238 THE PARTICLE ἵνα. 3 [8 189 


8 Further, ἵνα is used after many predicates in order to desig: 
nate the effect contained in the dependent clause as one 
designed, one included within the province of the subject’s 
volition. In this way the force of ἵνα approximates essen- 
tially to that of the (apparently opposite) particle ὥστε. 


Consequently, when lexicographers and commentators adduce among 
the significations of iva those of ὥστε also, they are by no means to be 
condemned as holding erroneous philological views. For every effect 
or consequence, so far forth as it is to be regarded not as one which 
is merely external and resulting as a matter of fact, but as intended 
and striven after by the subject, falls thereby under the idea of finality. 
Hence, not only do the Latin writers employ for both purposes one 
and the same particle (wt), but also in Greek ὥστε when it governs 
the Infin. is reckoned with reason by many grammarians (see e.g. 
Baumlein, Schulgr. § 590 sq. [οἷ Ὁ. p. 597]) among the final particles ; 
and there are cases enough where the final reference in ὥστε is so 
predominant that we can only translate it by in order to (see below, 
50 Rem. p. 244; Biiumlein, as above; Matth. Gr. §531, Aum. 2). In 
point of fact the majority of the predicates adduced in this and the 
following section are in Greek writers predominantly connected with 
ὥστε. Accordingly iva is connected frequently with the ideas to effect, 

to make, to compel, to persuade, to admit, to confer, etc.: as, ποιεῖν 
Mark iii. 14; Luke xviii. 41 τί σοι θέλεις ποιήσω; ὃ δὲ εἶπεν - ἵνα 
ἀναβλέψω, Rev. xiii. 15 Lehm.;! τιθέναι John xv. 16 ἔθηκα ὑμᾶς ἵνα 
ὑμεῖς ὑπάγητε καὶ καρπὸν φέρητε; διδόναι, especially in the Apoca- 
lypse in the common construction ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἵνα etc., further in ἐξουσίαν 
διδόναι, Acts viii. 19 δότε κἀμοὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην, ἵνα ... λαμβάνῃ, 
Mark xi. 28 τίς σοι τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἔδωκεν, ἵνα ταῦτα ποιῇς; ἀγγα- 
ρεύειν Matt. xxvii.32; πείθειν Matt. xxvii.20; ἀφιέναι Mark xi. 16; 

eis τὴν καρδίαν βάλλειν (rwi) John xiii. 2, ete. 
44 There remain still a great number of predicates and con- 
structions in which the idea of purpose decidedly recedes 
206 into the background, and ἵνα indicates solely a reference 
to something future and still to be realized, and often the 
dependent clause contains also merely the completion of the 
statement given incompletely in the predicate : — in brief, then, 
cases where the clause with iva serves as a periphrasis for the 
Infinitive (with or without ὥστε) alone in use in ordinary 


1 The omission of ἵνα in this passage in the text of Tdf. [eds.2, 7, 8; so cod. Sin.] 
ΒΟ that the simple Subjunctive ἀποκτανθῶσιν would depend immediately on ποιήσῃ, 
somewhat as in Latin the Subjunct. without ut after fac, sine, etc., is very improbable 
Cf. 49 note p. 243. 


§ 139.] | THE MOODS. 239 


prose; particularly for the Infin. Fut are, which hardly con- 
tinues to be employed in the N.T., or for the Infin. with τοῦ 
which is much in use there (and with which it often alternates 
after the same predicates and in the same sense; see § 140, 


12 sqq. pp. 266 sqq.). 

This is the freest use of ἵνα in the N. T. And although it never 
stands in the strict ecbatic sense (for ὥστε with the finite verb), it has 
nevertheless here reached the very boundary line where the difference 
between the two relations (the telic and the ecbatic) disappears and 
itisnearer to the ecbatic sense than to its original final sense. 
Necessary as the demand is, that in a systematic inquiry into the use 
of the particle, even within a comparatively restricted field, we should 
always make its original telic force, which is the only force it has 
in earlier Greek writers, our point of departure, and trace out thence 
the transitions to its diverse shades of meaning; the interests of 
exegesis would gain very little, if in every individual passage 
of the N. Τὰ even (the language of which has already departed so far 
from original classic Greek usage) we should still take pains, at the 
cost of the simple and natural sense and by a recourse to artificial 
means, always to introduce the telic force. In our language, as a rule, 
the particle that (which in like manner unites in itself both reference: 
is an adequate translation; but there are instances where we approx- 
imate more nearly to the intention of the writer if we translate it 
most simply and in a way which corresponds best to the sense of the 
passage, viz. by the mere Infinitive, even with so that, so as (i.e. ὥστε 
with the Infin.). All this will be plain from the 

Examp.es: John viii. ὅθ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἠγαλλιάσατο, iva ἴδῃ τὴν ἡμέραν 
τὴν ἐμὴν equiv. to ὅτι ὄψοιτο not that he saw but that he should see, 
like Rev. xiv. 13 μακάριοι οἱ νεκροὶ ... ἵνα ἀναπαήσονται, John xv. 
13 μείζονα ἀγάπην οὐδεὶς ἔχει iva τις τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ θῇ (equiv. to ὥστε 
θεῖναι) which impels him to ete., 1 Thess. v. 4 οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σκότει, ἵνα 
ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμᾶς ὡς κλέπτης καταλάβῃ so that the day could surprise you, 
John ix. 2 ris ἥμαρτεν, ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ no external consequence, but 
designating the internal causal connection, ordained by a higher power, 
between sin and malady: so that he should (must) be born blind, Luke 
ix. 45 ἠγνόουν τὸ ῥῆμα καὶ ἣν παρακεκαλυμμένον ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, ἵνα μὴ 
αἴσθωνται αὐτό not ἐπ order that etc. but so that they could not 
understand it, John v. 20 μείζονα ἔργα δείξει, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε (not 
in order that, but) so that ye will wonder, Matt. x. 25 ἀρκετὸν τῷ 
μαθητῇ, ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὃ διδάσκαλος equiv. to τὸ γενέσθαι, Gal. v. 17, 
etc. ‘That, however, many passages were taken by the (earlier) 
interpreters in the ecbatic sense where the final is altogether admissible, 


207 


240 THE PARTICLE ἵνα. [8 189 


in fact necessary (6.5. John vii. 28, ete.), has been shown by Winer 
457 (426) by a number of examples. 
In accordance now with the foregoing section, we find in the N. T. 


45 the following predicates joined to this comparatively ecbatic ἵνα, where 


i5 


the Greek literary language certainly would have used either ὥστε 
with the Infin. or quite a different construction: συμφέρειν Matt. v. 29, 
80, etc. ; ἀρκεῖν John vi. 7; ἀρκετὸν εἶναι (see 44 p. 239), ἱκανὸν εἶνχι 
Matt. viii. 8; Luke vii. 6; χρείαν ἔχειν John ii. 25, ete. ; συνήθειά ἐστιν 
John xviii. 39; μισθός ἐστιν 1 Cor. ix. 18; καλόν ἐστιν 1 Cor. ix. 15 
Taf. [eds. 2, 7; not 8]; ἐμοὶ ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν 1 Cor. iv. 3; ἡ dpa ἔρχεται, 
ἐλήλυθεν John xvi. 32 (on the other hand vs. 25 ἔρχεται ὥρα, ὅτ ε οὐκέτι 
λαλήσω etc.) ; ἔδωκα χρόνον Rev. ii. 21; ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ 
θέλημα etc. John iv. 84; μειζοτέραν οὐκ ἔχω χαρὰν ἵνα ἀκούω 3 John 4: 
and when referring to a preparatory demonstrative preced- 
ing: πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ πρός pe Luke i. 43 (cf. Protev. 12. 2; 
Acta Andr. 6,— this last Apocryphal book was written early, is a 
decided imitation of the canonical writings, and exhibits several 
instances of the echatic ἵνα), τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον, ἵνα πιστεύσητε John 
vi. 29, αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκουσιν (see above, 39 p. 295) John xvii. 3, 
αὕτη ἡ ἀγάπη ... ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς τηρῶμεν 1 John v. 3 (cf. iv. 17). Yet 
it always remains for the interpreter to decide which reference in iva, 
agreeably to the most obvious sense, predominates in every individual 
case. 


That all the above prescriptions in reference to the signifi- 
cation and use of ἵνα are not rigidly fixed, and cannot be, in 
consequence of the wide difference in style of the several 
authors in this particular, has already been intimated, 40 p. 235. 
Often the example given above is the only one of the kind in 
the N. T.; many of the predicates mentioned admit quite as 
often, sometimes still more frequently, some of them even 
commonly, of the construction with the Infinitive (with and 
without Tod), as θέλειν, ζητεῖν, ποιεῖν, πείθειν, ἀφεῖναι, ἱκανὸν 
εἶναι, χρείαν ἔχειν, etc. 

The complete equivalence of the construction with the Conjunction 
and that with the Infinitive is evident from many passages: — partic- 
ularly from parallel passages, as Matt. xxvi. 17 ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν 
σοι φαγεῖν and Mark xiv. 12 ποῦ Ged. ér. ἵνα φάγῃς, John i. 27 ἄξιος ἵνα 
λύσω τὸν ἱμάντα and Acts xili. 25 ἄξιος λῦσαι τὸ ὑπόδημα ; — or from 
those in which both constructions are dependent immediately upon a 
single predicate and united into a single sentence, as 1 Cor. ix. 15 Tdf 
feds. 2,7; not 8] καλόν μοι μᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου ἵνα τις 
κενώσει, Rey. vi. 4 ἐδόθη αὐτῷ λαβεῖν τὴν εἰρήνην ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἵνα ἀλλή: 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 241 


λους σφάξουσιν ;—or where the Mss. are divided between the two 
constructions, as 2 Pet. i. 10. 

Remark. In conclusion, mention may be made here of the rather 
frequent elliptical constructions with ἵνα (ἀλλ᾽ iva etc.). One species 
of them, where the governing idea is implicitly given in the predicate 


47 


of the leading clause, has already been treated of above in 42 p. 237. . 


Often an entire clause, or some such thought as ‘this happened’ etc., 
is suppressed, as it either is easily to be supplied from the context, or 
if added would have been cumbersome and prejudicial to the simplicity 
of the sentence, which is sufficiently intelligible without it (cf. the 
similar instances § 151, 24c) p. 395); as, Mark xiv. 49 καθ᾽ ἡμέραν 
ἤμην... καὶ οὐκ ἐκρατήσατέ pe* ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν ai γραφαί, John ix. 
3 οὔτε οὗτος ἥμαρτεν, οὔτε... , ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῇ etc., xv. 25; 1 John 
ii. 19, cf. John xiii. 18; xiv. 30. Similarly Luke xvii. 2 λυσιτελεῖ 
αὐτῷ εἰ λίθος περίκειται ... ἢ ἵνα σκανδαλίσῃ than if he lives to etc., 
Gal. ii. 9, 10 δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρνάβᾳ ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη..." 
μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμ εν. 

Further, we shall find that by means of such elliptical constructions 
with iva — very much as in the case of the rare Infin. Fut. (according 
to 44 p. 239) —the far more rare Participle Future (see § 144, 
10 p. 296), which the classic language likes so much to employ to 
express a purpose, was avoided, or even periphrased, as appears from 
the following examples: Rev. vi. 2 ἐξῆλθεν νικῶν καὶ ἵνα νικήσῃ, 
John i. 8 οὐκ ἣν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὲ Tod φωτός, Eph. 
γ. 27 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον ἢ ῥυτίδα, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἦ ἁγία καὶ 

ἄμωμος (dependent as respects construction on παραστήσῃ). 

Lastly ἵνα is used (quite as in classical writers the elliptical ὅπως 
B. m. 46; H. §756a.; C. § 626; Ὁ. 8611; J.§812,2; 6. § 45 Ν. 7) 
as a circumlocution for the Imperative: either after a 
preceding verbum dicendi, as in Mark v. 23 λέγων ὅτι τὸ θυγάτριόν μου 
ἐσχάτως ἔχει: ἵνα ἐλθὼν ἐπιθῇς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῇ, ἵνα σωθῇ ; or 
without such antecedent, as in 2 Cor. viii. 7 ἀλλ᾽, ὥσπερ περισσεύετε ..., 
ἵνα καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ TH χάριτι περισσεύητε; οΥ in continuation of a fore- 
going Imperative, as Eph. iv. 29 πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω, 
ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τις... ἵνα δῷ χάριν, V. 88 ἕκαστος ἀγαπάτω τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα, 7 
᾿ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα. 

The restrictive conclusion with ἵνα μὴ, as Philem. 19 ἵνα 
μὴ λέγω σοι ὅτι... προσοφείλεις (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 5 ἵνα μὴ ἐπιβαρῶ), cor- 
responds to the Latin constructions ne dicam and the like. 





B. ὃ 189, τὰ. 50; H. § 720; C. § 624; Ὁ). ὃ 588; J. § 814; G. § 46. 


After verbs of fearing etc. (φοβεῖσθαι, εὐλαβεῖσθαι) our 
81 


208 


48 


949 βλέπειν, ὁρᾷν μή, ETC. [8189 


that is rendered, as in the classics, by μή; (that not, Lat. ne non, 
by μὴ ov according to ὃ 148, 11 p. 854). Of the dependent 
moods only the Subjunctive (agreeably to the use in final 
clauses) is still employed after μή, even after historic tenses ; 
as, Acts xxvii. 17 φοβούμενοι pur)... ἐκπέσωσιν, ἐφέροντο, 29 ; 
xxiii. 10 φοβηθεὶς μὴ διασπασθῇ ἐκέλευσεν. After leading tenses: 
2 Cor. xi. 3; Heb. iv. 1, ete. ; Subjunctive in connection with 
the Future, 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21. | 

In Acts v. 26 Lehm. [Treg.] ἐφοβοῦντο yap τὸν λαὸν, μὴ λιθασθῶσιν, 
the subordinate clause does not seem to be dependent on ἐφοβοῦντο, 
but to belong as a telic specification (for ἵνα μὴ λιθ. as Tdf. et al. 
actually read, afterA) to what precedes, since if it depends on ἐφοβοῦντο, 
it ought, according to the analogy of the familiar construction (οἶδά 
σε ort), to have been so framed that τὸν λαόν might have been its 
Subject, as in Thuc. 4, 108 τοὺς ξυμμάχους ἐφοβοῦντο, μὴ ἀποστῶσιν. 


- Yet it is more probable that the sentence, when compared with the 


similar passage Gal. iv. 11 (φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς, μή πως εἰκῇ κεκοπίακα εἰς 
ὑμᾶς), contains a blending of two constructions (ἐφοβ. τὸν λαόν, and 
ἐφοβ. μὴ λιθασθῶσιν) ; or rather, that after the analogy of the instances 
given in ὃ 151, 10 p. 888 there is a bound from the Active construction 


909 over into the Passive (consequently for μὴ Adon or λιθάσωσιν ἡμᾶς). 


49 


Further, the reading μὴ λιθ. is not only the better attested (codd. Vat. 
Sin. etc.), but the other (iva μὴ Ab.) would rather appear to be a 
correction of it than vice versa; cf. besides, Ep. Barn. 6 and the quite 
similar instance in Thue. 4, 8, 7. More difficult is it to explain 
by the same analogy the change in the passage from the Ep. to the 
Gal. (iv. 11), if we avail ourselves merely of the recorded words. 
But the thought which was in the mind of the apostle when he began 
the sentence (φοβοῦμαι bas) was something like, ‘I fear that ye 
may render futile my endeavors’; for which by a change of construction 
the thought at once was presented, ‘that I have labored for you in 
vain. On the use of the Indic. Perfect (κεκοπίακα) in order to set 
forth the object of fear as an already existing fact, as it were, or to 
anticipate it, cf. Hermas Mand. 12,5; Protev. 14. 1, the corresponding 
examples from Greek authors in B. l.c., and below, ὃ 148, 10 p. 353. 
Remark. The two verbs βλέπειν and ὁρᾷν are often used 
tropically, in the sense of φυλάσσεσθαι, to be on one’s guard, take heed. 
Hence they take also the same constructions as this verb, viz. either 
a noun with ἀπό and the Gen. (see 8147 under ἀπό p. 323), or a verb 
with μή (not ἵνα py; for in 2 John 8 βλέπετε ἑαυτούς, iva μὴ ἀπολέσητε 
etc. the first clause forms a complete thought, and the clause which 
follows is a subjoined specification of end). Now since both these 
verbs always immediately precede the clause negatived by μή in the 


§ 189.) THE MOODS. 243 


Imperative form, they appear almost like a pleynastic addition, 
after the fashion of the very similar constructions in Latin with vide, 
cave ne etc. ‘The Mood is as usual in sentences expressing apprehen- 
sion and warning the Aorist Subjunct., as Matt. xviii. 10 ὁρᾶτε μὴ 
καταφρονήσητε ἑνὸς τούτων, XXiv. 4 βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ, Mark 
xiii. 5; Luke xxi. 8 βλέπετε μὴ πλανηθῆτε, Acts xiii. 40; 1 Cor. x. 12; 
1 Thess. v.15; Heb. xii. 25; yet the Future also, which so frequently 
alternates with this Subjunct., may take its place, as Col. ii. 8 βλέπετε 
μή τις ἔσται, Heb. iii. 12.) 

Finally, there are a few passages where those Imperatives (ὅρα, 
ὁρᾶτε) must really be regarded as thoroughly pleonastic addi- 
tions, they being prefixed to another Imperative (or Subjunctive 
in its place) negatived by μή, and even to a positive Imperative 
without anything intervening (cf. § 151, 32 p. 402); as, Matt. ix. 30 
ὁρᾶτε μηδεὶς γινωσκέτω, viii. 4 dpa μηδενὲ εἴπῃς, Mark viii. 15 ὁρᾶτε 
βλέπετε ἀπὸ τῆς ζύμης τῶν ®.; hence also in Matt. xxiv. 6 (ὁρᾶτε μὴ 
θροεῖσθε) the form θροεῖσθε is not to be taken as Indicative (for the 
Future), but as Imperative. 

The case is different with the actual Indicative in Luke xi. 35 
σκόπει οὖν μὴ TO φῶς TO ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν. Since, that is to say, 
σκοπεῖν is never used in the sense of φυλάσσεσθαι, like the above two 
verbs (hence in Gal. vi. 1 the clause with μὴ is to be construed as a 
pure telic clause, for iva μὴ etc.), but uniformly in its proper significa- 
tion to look at, regard, the dependent clause is to be taken as an 
indirect question in the Indicative (seeH. below): see to τέ whether 210 
the light ... ts not ete. 

On the elliptical ὅρα μή see ὃ 151, 24b) p. 895. 


F. Ivzative Sentences. 

B § 189, πα. 62 sqq.; H. 88 770. 771; C. 8 671d.; D. § 596; J. 8.868; G. 85 65, 8; 98. 

As respects sentences expressing consequence, the N..T. 50 
writings depart but little from the general rules. With ὥστε, 
so far forth as at the beginning of a clause it is the co- 
ordinating particle (ttaque), the Indicative is joined (Matt. 
xii. 12, etc.). And even when the Subjunctive follows 
(1 Cor. v. ὃ ὥστε ἑορτάζωμεν etc.) the particle is co-ordinating, 
since the Subjunct. here is the Conjunct. adhortativus described 
in 4 above, p. 209, and therefore only takes the place of the 


1 The positive injunction rendered by the Future after ὅρα in Heb. viii. 5 
(ὅρα ποιήσεις etc., a quotn.) is not to be explained by the omission of ἵνα, but results 
solely from the literal translation of the Hebrew, and is founded consequently 
upon no N. T. usage. 


944 F. ILLATIVE SENTENCES. [§ 139 


Imperative, which after ὥστε is pretty frequent, t.g. 1 Cor. iii. 
21; iv. 5: x. 127; “xi. 38, ete. 

But whbndeer it is the subordinating particle (δα ut), the 
construction with the Infinitive (Acc. with Infin.) is almost 
the only one in use: and that, too, both when the dependent 
clause contains the purely natural consequence of the leading 
action,! as Matt. viii. 24; xiii. 2, ete.; and when it is a designed 
consequence, as Matt. x. 1; xii. 22; Acts xiv. l,etc. See the 
Remark. 


Of the use of ὥστε in the sense of so that with the Indicative (which 
then of course represents the consequence objectively, as a fact 
accomplished) there are but two instances: once after οὕτως John iii. 
16 (οὕτως ἠγάπησεν ... ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν), and once almost 
in the co-ordinating sense (ἐξαφμ6) Gal. ii. 18. After τοσοῦτος 
likewise wore (not ὅσος B. m. 57) is used, and with the Infin. Matt. 
xv. 33. Of ὡς with the Infin. instead of ὥστε, according to Greek 
usage, there is but one example in Acts (xx. 24), which to judge 
from the copious variants seems to have almost ceased to be intelligible 
to the copyists, ete. ‘Qs occurs as a variant in Luke ix. 52 (sup- 
ported by & B). 

Remark. Since, as was remarked above (43 p. 238), ὥστε unites 
in itself both references — that of result and that of design, there 
are cases where, as in iva the ecbatic (44 p. 238), so in ὥστε the 
final, force predominates; or at least, while the issue is still future, 
it is anticipated or represented in thought as if already realized. 

211 That in Greek authors also this usage is by no means unknown (see 
e.g. Lys. or. 19, 16), and hence even in them, too, ὥστε and ὅπως are 
found after the same predicates, has likewise already been remarked 
above. Cf. also εἰς τὸ followed by the Infin. in ὃ 140,10 p. 264. The 
most marked passages of the sort in the N. T. are the following: 
Matt. xxvii. 1 συμβούλιον ἔλαβον οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, ὥστε θανατῶσαι αὐτόν 
(where cod. D explains the ὥστε by ἵνα θανατώσουσιν), ---- but after the 
same predicate ὅπως with the Subjunct. as usual stands in Matt. xxii. 
15; Mark iii. 6; further Luke iv. 29 ἤγαγον αὐτὸν... ὥστε κατακρη- 
μνίσαι αὐτὸν (where again many mss. and the Rec. have eis 76_x.), 
ix. 52 εἰσῆλθον εἰς κώμην Σαμαρειτῶν, ὥστε ἑτοιμάσαι αὐτῷ, xx. 20 iva 


1 This case is by far the more frequent one with ὥστε and the Infin. in the N. T. 
(and is also common enough in classic writers, see B. m. 53 and 54), because for 
the second, the designed consequence, the particle ἕνα was employed (according to 
what was said above, see 40, 43 sqq. pp. 235 sqq.) by many writers, particularly John ; 
hence, as matter of fact, this Evangelist no longer uses ὥστε with the Infin., and 
even ὥστε with the Indic. (after οὕτω) occurs oniy once in his writings, 3668 
above. 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 245 


ἐπιλάβωνται αὐτοῦ λόγου, ὥστε παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν τῇ ἀρχῇ. Matt. xv. 33 
also is to be taken most naturally in this sense. 


G. DercrarativE SENTENCES (WITH ὅτι). 
B. § 189, m. 58sqq.; H. §§ 783sq.; C. §§ 648sq.; Ὁ. §§ 590sq.; J. §§ 800 5ᾳ.; 6. δ 698q. 

The only particle which belongs under this head is ὅτε; for 51 
ὡς is always to be translated by how. The Optative as the 
Mood of indirect assertion is in this connection completely 
excluded, because in its stead the Indicative everywhere 
makes its appearance, as Matt. xvi. 20, 21,etc. But even this 
use of the Indicative with ὅτι is frequently not observed, as 
the N. T. writers (like the Seventy) prefer to introduce dis- 
courses in the direct form, even twice or thrice in succession 
in one and the same sentence. This is done either without 
the intervention of a particle (in which case the more recent 
editions [but not Tdf.’s 8th] begin the clause with a capital 
letter), or (after a mode in use even by the Greeks, B. m. 61; 
G.§ 79) by means of the particle ὅτι, which is then redundant. 
(In this case recent editions [except Treg.’s] do not use the 
capitals,! and also put no stop after ὅτευ, ---- ἃ procedure which 
sometimes where the third Person is used, or the same Person 
in both the dependent and the leading clause, causes am- 
biguity.) 

Examples occur in great number everywhere: of direct discourse 
twice in succession, John i. 15 λέγων Οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον Ὃ ἐρχόμενος 
γέγονεν etc. (see on this ὃ 151, 1d) p. 377), v. 12 ἠρώτησαν Τίς ἐστιν 
ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ εἰπών σοι "Apov καὶ περιπάτει; of both kinds (with and 
without ὅτι), John x. 86 ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι" βλασφημεῖς, ὅτι (becarise) 
εἶπον Ὑἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι (see on this ὃ 141,1 p. 272); of direct dis- 
course three times, John x. 384 ἀπεκρίθη Οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραμμένον ὅτι" 
ἐγὼ εἶπα Θεοί ἐστε; further, of ὅτι before the 2d Pers. Sing. of the 
Imperative, John ix. 11; xiv. 9 (cod. Sin., on which Tdf. remarks, 
tale ὅτι non inferri sed expelli solet), before the 3d Pers., 2 Thess. iii. 10. 

The Subjunctive as the dependent Mood is impossible (because 
experience has already decided the matter, cf. B. m. 58), and hence 
where it occurs it must be taken as the Subjunctive in independent 
clauses (see above, 2 sqq. p. 203), as Rom. iii. 8 φασίν τινες ἡμᾶς λέγειν 
ὅτι ποιήσωμεν τὰ κακὰ, ἵνα ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀγαθά (conjunct. adhort. or 
dubit.; upon the construction see further § 141,8 p. 274) ; or it takes 212 
the place of the Future, according to N. T. usage, e.g. after od μή: 


1 On the other hand, if ὅτι is written with a capital, it belongs to the direct 
fliso urse itself, e.g. 1 Cor. xii. 15, etc. Cf. below, 59 p. 252. 


b2 


b3 


246 G. DECLARATIVE SENTENCES. [§ 139 


Matt. v. 20 λέγω, ὅτι οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, Mark — 
xiv. 25 λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω, etc. 
Respecting ἵνα after εἰπεῖν and other verba dicendi see 42 note p. 237. 


B. § 139, m. 59, 60; C. § 639; J. 8 804, 8.9; G. § 118, NN. 7,9; $56. 

After μιμνήσκεσθαι and the like, our that is only given in the N. T. 
by ὅτι (not ὅτε). On the other hand, εἰ is frequently found instead 
of ὅτι after θαυμάζειν, as Mark xv. 44 Πιλᾶτος ἐθαύμασεν, εἰ ἤδη 
τέθνηκεν, 1 John iii. 13 μὴ θαυμάζετε, εἰ μισεῖ ὑμᾶς ὃ κόσμος. Similar 
examples are Luke xii. 49 τί θέλω, εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη (see above, 10 p. 215), 
Acts xxvi. 8 ἄπιστον κρίνεται παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, εἰ ὁ θεὸς νεκροὺς ἐγείρει ; Heb. 
vii. 15 κατάδηλόν ἐστιν, <i... ἀνίσταται ἱερεὺς ἕτερος (cf. vs. 14). 


- Β, § 189, m. 61; H. ὃ Τ43Ὁ.; C. 8. 644; J. § 802, Obs. 8; 6. 8 79. 

Among the examples of ὅτι before direct discourse may also be 
reckoned the case where, instead of a construction by means of the 
verbal adj. or the Impersonal δεῖ, the Imperative itself makes its 
appearance, as 2 Thess. iii. 10 παρηγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι εἴ τις οὐ θέλει 
ἐργάζεσθαι, μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω (cf. the example from Thucyd. in B. τὰ. 36 — 
m. 61 in the last ed.; the similar case with εἰ μή in ὃ 149, 4 p. 359; 
and in 42 above, p. 237, the other construction with wa and the 
Subjunct.). 


Respecting the redundant ὅτι before the Aa. with Infin. (Acts 
xxvii. 10) see § 151, 10 p. 383. 


H. ἹΝΤΕΒΕΟΘΑΤΙΥΕ SENTENCES, DirEcT AND INDIRECT. 
Β. § 139, τα. 62sqq.; H. $$ 824sqq.; J. $$ 87lsqq.; G. $$ 68sqq. 88. 

The practice just mentioned of quoting language almost 
exclusively in the direct form, has as its natural consequence 
that the form of the direct interrogative sentence has 
become by far the predominant one. In order not to scatter 
too much our treatment of a topic of great importance for the 
comprehension of the N. T. writings, we will bring together 
here into a single summary the entire N. T. usage (in other 
respects as well as mood) of both kinds of sentence. 

Direct interrogative clauses which have not already an 
interrogative pronoun, as tis; τί; or an interrogative adverb, 
as πῶς, ποῦ, etc., at their head, are, as is well known, in both 
the ancient languages (contrary to the usage of German and 
other modern tongues) generally introduced by an inter- 
rogative particle. But in the popular or colloquial language, 
which designates interrogative clauses plainly enough merely 
by the interrogative accent, this aid was slighted, as a rule, 


§ 139. THE MOODS. 247 


even by the Greeks and Romans; and its frequent use was 
probably characteristic rather of the literary language. 


Agreeably to what has been said, the language of the N. T. has 
employed, in by far the majority of cases, the popular mode of in- 
troducing interrogative clauses without an interrogative word. 
And this it has done not only (as happens for the most part in the 
historical books) immediately after a verbum quaerendi in the fore- 
going narrative, — as John ix. 19 ἠρώτησαν - οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ υἱὸς ὑμῶν, 
ὃν λέγετε ὅτι τυφλὸς ἐγεννήθη ; Vv. 6 λέγει αὐτῷ - θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι; ; — 
but also (as often happens in the epistolary style, in protracted 
arguments, etc.) without a preceding verbum quaerendi; in which 
case the presence of an interrogative clause, therefore, is only to be 
discovered by the connection, as 1 Cor. ix. 11; 2 Cor. iii. 1, ete. 
Questions which expect an affirmative answer are, at least as a rule, 
distinguished by a direct negative (ov, οὐχί, οὐδέ, οὐδείς, etc.) placed 
at the very beginning of the clause; as, John xi. 8 οὐχὶ δώδεκα ὧραί 
εἰσιν τῆς ἡμέρας ; vii. 42 οὐχ ἡ γραφὴ εἶπεν ὅτι etc. This form of 
question is especially characteristic of Paul, who accordingly, assuming 
tacitly the affirmative answer of the persons addressed, often uses several 
such interrogative clauses in succession, as 1 Cor. ix. 1 sqq. 


The practice of distinguishing the interrogative clause by 
an interrogative particle, although the less frequent, is 
yet not an uncommon, practice; but the manner of doing so, 
or the choice of the particle, deviates more or less from 
ordinary usage. 


The particle dpa (formerly employed most frequently), cor- 
responding to the Latin -ze and by no means always expecting a 
negative answer, appears, at the most, only in Luke’s writings (Gospel 
xviii. 8; Acts viii. 30); forin Gal. ii. 17 εἰ δὲ... εὑρέθημεν ἁμαρτωλοὶ, 
ἄρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος the form dpa (as invariably with Paul) 
is with Lchm. and many interpreters to be preferred, but the clause 
nevertheless to be taken as a question: ‘is then, forsooth, after all, 
Christ’ etc.; cf. the quite similar clauses, yet without the interrogative 
form, in ii. 21; iii. 29; v.11 etc. 1 Cor. xv. 18, and on the dpa, often 
used thus in questions by Greek authors, Plato, Gorg. p. 477, ete. 
On the whole, perhaps as respects the N. T. writers the conjecture 
has considerable probability, that a precise distinction (which more- 
over even in Greek authors it is hard to carry out, see Ph. Buttm. 
on Pl. Charm. 15; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. sub voce; Klotz ad Devar. II 
160 sqq.) between the two particles has been lost sight of; heuce, too, 
the illative particle so often stands at the beginning, see § 149, 18 
p. 371. 


213 


948 H. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES. [§ 139. 

Very common, on the other hand, is a question (anticipating 
a negative answer) by means of the Particle μή (see Β. 
8 148, ὅ ; Η. § 829; Ὁ. § 687; Ὁ. p. 559; J. § 873, 4; 6. p. 
84) for which μήτι is often used; Eng. surely not? or simply, 
perhaps, possibly (spoken in a doubting tone). 

Matt. vii. 9,10 μὴ λίθον ... μὴ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; surely he will 
not give him a stone ... a serpent? Luke xvii. 9 μὴ ἔχει χάριν τῷ 
δούλῳ ; ts he perchance thankful to the bondman? vi. 39 μήτι δύναται 
τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν ; in reply to which we have again a question, 
but with οὐχί, nonne? Matt. xxvi. 22, 25 μήτι ἐγώ εἶμι, ῥαββι: 
(although the answer follows, od εἶπας), Mark ii. 19; Acts vii. 28; 
Rom. iii. 5; Jas. iii. 12; and often in John: iii. 4; vi. 67, ete. (ef. 
also 62 p. 256). This form of interrogation we must conceive of as 
having sprung originally from an indirect construction, as ‘I hope, 
am of the opinion, that he surely will not’ etc.; and this thought 
several ancient MSS. suggest immediately after a question of the sort 

214 in Luke xvii. 9 by the addition οὐ δοκῶ. Peculiar to Paul is the use, 
instead of the answer to such questions, of the well-known negatory 
formula (Gen. xliv. 7; Luke xx. 16) μὴ γένοιτο, as Rom. iii. 4, 6; ix. 
14; xi. 1, 11. 

If in such questions the predicate is negatived besides, that 
can be done according to the rule (§ 148, 11 p. 354) only by the 
direct negation ot; the question requires then an affirmative answer 
(nonne), as Rom. x. 18 μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν ; μενοῦνγε etc., 19 μὴ Ἰσραὴλ 
οὐκ ἔγνω ; πρῶτος Μωῦσῆς λέγει etc., 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5, 6; xi. 22. 

Quite in the same way arose, from the form of indirect inter- 
rogation, the direct interrogative sentences (particu- 
larly frequent in the writings of Luke) with e¢ preceding. 
Then εἰ is superfluous, precisely as ὅτι was in the declara- 
tive sentences treated of in G. p. 245; and the usage, as in 
that case, is to be accounted for by the constant tendency to 
pass over into direct discourse. 


The direct nature of such interrogative clauses becomes incontes- 
tably evident from sentences like Luke xxii. 49 εἶπαν" κύριε, εἰ 
πατάξομεν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ; xiii. 23 κύριε, εἰ ὀλίγοι of σωζόμενοι ; Acts i. 
6; xix. 2 εἶπεν " εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐλάβετε πιστεύσαντες ; xxi. 37 Παῦλος 
λέγει" εἰ ἔξεστίν μοι εἰπεῖν τι πρὸς σέ; xxii. 25; xxiii. 9; Matt. χχ. 1 
Tdf. (where, however, Tdf. in his 8th ed. has correctly altered εἰ again, 
with codd. Vat. Sin. ete., into 4; the Lat. versions also give uniformly 
either an or aut), Mark viii. 23 Tdf. (after cod. Vat.; in his 8th ed. 
Tdf. reads again βλέπει after cod. Sin.); cf. 56 p. 249. Hence we 
may probably take without hesitation those clauses also as direct, 


5189. THE M¢ ODS. 249 


which externally differ in nothing from the form of the indirect ques- 
tion (with εἰ whether), as Acts vii. 1 εἶπεν ὃ ἀρχιερεὺς - εἰ ἄρα ταῦτα 
οὕτως ἔχει; Matt. xii. 10 ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες " εἰ ἔξεστιν τοῖς 
σάββασιν θεραπεύειν ; xix. 3. This usage is found, moreover, in the 
Sept. also, e.g. Gen. xliii. 6; Judg. xiii. 11; 1 Sam. x. 24, etc., which 
translates in this way the Hebr. 5, which likewise stands before direct 
questions and indirect, see Gesen. sub voce. 

The particle οὐκοῦν (B. §149 m. 18; H. §866a.; C. 8 087 ο.; 
D. § 535; J. § 791 Obs.) in the single passage in which it occurs 
(John xviii. 37) is not interrogative, but illative in reference to what 
precedes ; but the clause (as above with dpa) is an interrogative clause 
of the first kind (cf. 54 p. 246): οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; ergone rex es? 
thou art then (according to what thou sayest) a king ? 


Direct double questions (without a material interrog- δὲ 
ative word, as τίς, ποῦ, etc.) are properly marked, as with 
us, only by the ἤ (07) in the second clause, consequently 
merely by the tone, in the popular fashion spoken of 54 p. 246; 
as, Matt. xi. 8 σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ἢ ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν ; Mark 
xii. 14 ἔξεστιν δοῦναι κῆνσον Καίσαρι, ἢ οὔ ; δῶμεν, ἢ μὴ δῶμεν ; 
Doubtful instances, with the pleonastic εἰ (55 p. 248) αὖ the 
beginning, are: Luke xiv. 3 Lchm. where Tdf. [Treg.], com- 
paring the parallel passage Matt. xii. 10, have expunged e [Sin. 
om.], and Luke vi. 9 where all three editors have preferred 
the form of an indirect question. 


From strict double questions (i.e. those whose members mutually 
exclude each other) those cases are to be carefully distinguished, 
where to an antecedent question — instead of the answer, or in com 
pletion and continuation of the first question —a second is subjoined 
and connected by 7. For example: after an interrogative clause 214 
of the first kind (with od), Matt. xii. 8 544. οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε, τί ἐποίησεν ... ; 
ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ete., xx. 15 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg. ], (Tdf. [eds. 
2,7] <i); after a question negatived by μή (55 p. 248), 1 Cor. ix. 8 
μὴ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ταῦτα λαλῶ, ἢ καὶ ὃ νόμος ταῦτα ob λέγει; 9 μὴ τῶν 
βοῶν μέλει τῷ θεῷ, ἢ δὲ ἡμᾶς πάντως λέγει; i. 13; Matt. vii. 16, etc. ; 
after a double question, Gal. i. 10 ἄρτι ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν θεόν; ἢ 
ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν; The same particle (7) stands also, as an 
does in Latin, with a simple antithetic question after a preced- 
ing categoric clause ; as, Matt. xxvi. 53; 2 Cor, xi. 7; xiii. 5; 1 Cor. 
xiv. 36 (where even the double 7 involves no double question), etc. 


Indirect interrogativs clauses are dependent ona 57 


verbum quaereudi, dicenrdi, cognoscendi, etc., which 
? 3 
82 


950 H. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES, [§ 139, 


sometimes must first be educed from the predicate of the lead- 
ing clause, or supplitd; as, after ἐγένετο φιλονεικία ἐν αὐτοῖς 
(Luke xxii. 24), βάλλοντες κλῆρον, τίς τί ἄρῃ (Mark xv. 24), 
ἣν τάραχος, τί ἄρα ὁ Πέτρος ἐγένετο (Acts xii. 18). They 
divide themselves into two classes, according as they are 
introduced 

A. by a merely formal interrogative word, pointing out the 
interrogative clause as such (nwm, whether). The interroga- 
tive particle uniformly employed with simple, positive, inter- 
rogative clauses is ef, as Mark xv. 44 ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν, εἰ 
πάλαι ἀπέθανεν, xv. 36 ἔδωμεν, εἰ ἔρχεται ᾿Ηλίας, John ix. 25 
εἰ ἁμαρτωλός ἐστιν, οὐκ οἶδα ; in negative clauses (whether not, 
whether not perhaps) simply μή (μήποτε), as Luke iii. 16 
διαλογιζομένων πάντων περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου, μήποτε αὐτὸς εἴη 6 
Χριστός (with which may be compared the μή after βλέπετε, 
ὁρᾶτε, in 49 p. 242). 

With indirect double questions the full form of interrogation 
(usual with Greek writers) by means of the two particles πότερον 
+++ ἤ appears but once viz. John vii. 17 γνώσεται, πότερον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ 
ἐστιν, ἢ ἐγὼ ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ λαλῶ. Elsewhere εἴτε is used instead even 
twice, as 2 Cor. xii. 3 εἴτε ἐν σώματι, εἴτε χωρὶς τοῦ σώματος, οὐκ οἶδα, 
ὃ θεὸς οἶδεν; or the question is resolved into two, as 2 Cor. xii. 2 
εἴτε ἐν σώματι, οὐκ οἶδα, εἴτε ἐκτὸς σώματος, οὐκ οἶδα. In by far the 
majority of double questions, however, the direct interrogative 
form is chosen (with the simple 7 in the second clause), see 56 p. 249. 


B. by a material interrogative word, i.e. by a pronoun or 
a pronominal adverb of place, time, manner. The language, 
as is well known, created interrogative words (in the form of 
relatives) for this special purpose, such as ὅστις, ὁποῖος, ὅπου, 
ὁπότε, ὅπως, etc., which it employs as substitutes for the simple 
relative forms ὅς, οἷος, ὡς, etc., in designating indirect inter- 
rogative clauses. As, however, at all times, even in indirect 
questions, the direct interrogative pronouns τές, ποῖος, etc., 
very frequently make their appearance, this is the case in a 
still higher degree in the N.T., owing to the strong inclination 
of its authors to employ direct forms of statement. 


213 Examples of both kinds are found everywhere : as, after οἶδα indi- 
rect interrogation, οἶδεν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε ; ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω οἴδατε ; εἰδυῖα 
ὃ γέγονεν ; οὐκ οἴδατε οἵου πνεύματός ἐστε, etc. direct interrogation, οὐκ 
poet τίς ἐστιν ; τί λέγεις chk οἶδεν ; οὐκ οἶδα ποῦ ἔθηκαν, πόθεν ἦλθον, ποίᾳ 


§139.] THE MOODS. 251 


ἡμέρᾳ © κύριος ἔρχεται ; and in connection with the familia: construction 
($151, 1 p. 3877) οἷδά σε τίς εἶ, οὐκ οἶδα ὑμᾶς πόθεν ἐστέ; with other 
predicates, as Matt. vi. 28 καταμάθετε τὰ κρίνα πῶς αὐξάνουσιν, Luke 
ΧΙ. 80 προσδεχόμενοι τὸν κύριον πότε ἀναλύσῃ etc. Both species are 
united in one sentence, as 1 Tim. i. 7 μὴ νοοῦντες μήτε ἃ λέγουσιν μήτε 
περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται, ---- a combination which in Greek authors also 
is not rare ; see the examples in Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 57; Schneidewin 
on Soph. Oed. Tyr. 71. 

Remark. It is to be noted as a deviation from the regular usage 
(which, however, occurs likewise even in Greek authors) that the 
preference for the direct interrogative form is so great, that this form 
is not only substituted for the ordinary indirect question, but is some- 
times chosen even where according to rule only a pure relative 
clause is allowed to stand. But this occurs only after predicate ideas 
which have a certain affinity with verba sentiendi etc., so that the un- 
derlying thought can or must be traced back to the form of an indirect 
question. This takes place most frequently both in Greek authors 
and in the N. T. after the verb ἔχειν (οὐκ ἔχειν), as Matt. viii. 20 οὐκ 
ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ (equiv. to he knows not etc.), Mark viii. 
1, 2 οὐκ ἔχουσιν τί φάγωσιν, Luke xii. 17 οὐκ ἔχω ποῦ συνάξω τοὺς καρ- 
πούς. Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 2 τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε. On 
the other hand the construction is regular in Luke xi. 6 οὐκ ἔχω ὃ πα- 
ραθήσω αὐτῷ, Heb. viii. 3 ἔχειν τι ὃ προσενέγκῃ. The indirect question 
after this predicate is the more admissible, as ἔχειν is very often con- 
strued with the Infinitive, after the manner of verba sentiendi ete. 
(οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἀνταποδοῦναί σοι Luke xiv. 14, etc.) ; hence both modes 
of expression are united: Acts xxv. 26 ἀσφαλές τι γράψαι οὐκ ἔχω 
... ὅπως σχῶ τίγράψω. After the analogy of this verb still other 
verbs are found construed in the N. T., as Matt. x. 19 δοθήσεται ὑμῖν 
τί λαλήσετε (equiv. to ye will have etc.), Luke xvii. 8 ἑτοίμασον τί 
δειπνήσω (brachylogically equiv. to that I may have what etc.). Cf. on 
this topic Bhdy. p. 443 ; and among the passages from Greek authors, 
Plut. Mor. p. 606 C. od τί κρέας λέγεις ποιεῖς, od τί νοῦν ἔχων ἄνθρωπος, 
Callim. Ep. 80 (and Bentley’s note), Schol. on Soph. Oed. Col. ὃ. In 
the Sept. also the usage is not unknown, as Deut. xxix. 18; Ps. 
Xxxix. 6. 

Moreover, the following passages come into consideration here: 
Matt. xxvi. 62 and Mark xiv. 60 οὐδὲν ἀποκρίνῃ. τί οὗτοί σου καταμαρ- 
τυροῦσιν ; Hardly is τί to be taken here in a purely relative sense 
(equiv. to ὃ, Vulg. ad ea quae). That something must be supplied 
here is obvious, as a direct reference of τί to οὐδέν is impossible. It 
is most simple to supply a verbal idea like to hear, so that the abbre- 
viated thought if rendered grammatically complete would run: an- 


5d 


952 H. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES. . [§ 139. 


swerest thou nothing (hearing) what these witness against, thee? cf. 
§151, 25 p. 395. That the ancients, too, construed the passage in 
this way is apparent from the manner in which the Evang. Nicod. 
(Pars I. B) 2. 1 as it were paraphrases. the words: λέγει ὁ Πιλάτος 
᾿Ακούεις τί οὗτοί cov καταμαρτυροῦσιν, Kal οὐκ ἀποκρίνῃ. Acts Xiil. 
25 Tdf. [eds. 2,7] τίνα (Lchm. [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin.] ri) με ὑπονοεῖτε 
εἶναι, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγώ. Here the first clause in its dependence on the lead- 
ing clause is decidedly relative, hence according to rule instead of τίνα 
strictly ὅν ought to have stood; but, instead of this, the first clause 
has retained the form which it would have had if not in dependence, 


217 viz. the form of an interrogative clause. Obviously the placing of the 


59 


dependent clause before the leading clause occasioned the anomaly. 
Similar is Jas. iii. 13 τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων ἐν ὑμῖν, δειξάτω τὰ ἔργα 
αὐτοῦ etc. Here the first clause is commonly taken as an independent 
direct question, and accordingly an interrogation mark placed after 
ὑμῖν. But the disruption of clauses produced in this way, as well as 
the wholly unprovoked asyndetic transition to δειξάτω without any sub- 
ject, renders it probable that the two clauses are to be separated (with 
Lehm.) only by acomma. ‘Then an inversio structurae (cf. §151, 8-11 
pp- 381 sqq.) has taken place here as in the preceding example. The 
direct interrogative form of the first clause, occasioned by its precedence 
and retained by the immediate proximity of such a predicate as δειξάτω, 
passed (owing to the construction that follows) naturally over into the 
force of the kindred relative clause; (cf. the Germ. wer when it pre- 
cedes). Lastly, Mark xiv. 36 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τί ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλὰ τί σύ is trans- 
lated in the Vulg. by the relative: quod volo, and accordingly a pre- 
dicate like γενέσθω was asa rule supplied. But neither the meaning 
nor the form of the sentence permits such an addition. On the con- 
trary, the direct negation (od) as well as the pronoun τί render an 
ellipsis in harmony with an indirect interrogation (Fritzsche, guaeritur ; 
Meyer, the question ts) apparently more justifiable. 

But indubitable instances of the opposite case also occur, viz. in 
which the Relative or indirect form of interrogation is employed 
in a decidedly direct interrogative sentence. To be sure, 
all constructions of the sort (like most of the preceding examples) are 
founded in a faulty or negligent treatment of the forms of phraseology 
established by the literary language; and hence the occurrence par- 
ticularly of this second case in native Greek writers has been emphat- 
ically disputed (see Bhdy. p. 443 ; Schaef. on Demos. p. 1199). Nev- 
ertheless, after what Lobeck (ad Phryn. p. 57) has adduced, all such 
irregularities in earlier writers can hardly be. set aside by arbitrary 
emendation ; and to supply a verbum sentiendi and the like in every 
individual case, would amount to nothing else than giving the force of 


5139] ὁ oe THE MOODS. 253 


direct question to the Relative form (see Ph. Buttm. on Plat. Meno. 
6). Thus in the N. T. an instance, textually quite unquestionable, is 
Matt. xxvi. 50 εἶπεν αὐτῷ: Ἑταῖρε, ἐφ᾽ ὃ πάρει; (Vulg.ad quod venisti 3). 
Since elsewhere, neither in the N.T. nor, according to Lobeck’s ex- 
press testimony, in profane authors also is any example to be found of 
the simple relative so used (but only of the compound ὅστις), the 
interpreters have objected to taking this ἐφ᾽ 6 in the sense of ἐπὶ τί, and 
sought to remove the irregularity of the expression by the assumption 
of an aposiopesis ; but this here would be likewise irregular (cf. § 151 
V. p. 396), and is quite at variance also with the character of the 
passage, in which there is no motive for leaving the thought incom- 
vlete. We reach the natural and only congruous interpretation of the 
words solely by the assumption of the faulty use of ὅ in the sense of 
an interrogatory exclamation, —a use, however, which does not seem 
to be more faulty than the use of ris spoken of in 58 p. 251, and in 
view of the examples which follow is by no means without analogy. 

Ἡλέκος is loosely used in an interrogative exclamatory sense in 
Jas. iii. 5 ἰδοὺ, ἡλίκον πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ἀνάπτει. Cf. the Homeric usage 
in Β. § 159, m. 8 ἃ. p. 373. 

In particular, however, is to be traced to the later use of the rel. 213 
pron. doris in direct questions (see Lobeck and cf. Apollon. Adv. p. 
550) the fact that often in the N. T. 6,71 in the sense of τίου διὰ τί 
wherefore ? (Tdf. [so Treg.] writes it then without the diastole ὅτι) 
stands at the head of a direct question; see Lchm. praef. p. xliii. ; 
Epist. Barn. pp. 16, 18, 20 ed. Dress. The passages are the follow- 
- ing: Mark ix. 11 ἐπηρώτων λέγοντες - Ὅ,τι λέγουσιν οἱ γραμματεῖς, ὅτι 
“HAiay δεῖ ἐλθεῖν πρῶτον ; 28 ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν - Ὅ,τι ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἠδυνήθημεν 
ἐκβαλεῖν αὐτό (Euthym.: τὸ ὅ,τι ἀντὶ τοῦ διὰ τί etc., which is actually 
given by several mss. see Tdf.’s crit. note), Mark ii. 16 Tdf. [Ἴτορ.]} 
"O,7u μετὰ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει; Probably also John viii. 
25 εἶπεν 6 Ἰησοῦς - Τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ,τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; Commonly this 
clause is taken not as a question, but by construing ὅτι as a pure rela- 
tive. But even the ancient Greek interpreters took 6,7: here in the 
sense of διὰ τί, which best suits the passage; see on the whole passage, 
which is exegetically very difficult, Liicke’s Com. Ὅ,τι is found 
besides as a noteworthy variant in Mark ii.7. Matt. vii. 14 also must 
be taken into consideration. Heére Tdf. has restored the original read- 
ing of the Vat. codex [and Siu.], confirmed also by Origen, ὅτι στενὴ 
ἡ πύλη etc., and has not treated the clause as a question, but taken the 
ὅτι as parallel to the first ὅτε in the 13th vs. in the sense of for. The 
most natural sense, however, is given by the old reading τί [so Lchm. 
Treg. | with the force of an exclamation (Vulg. guam), although else- 
where, in the N. T. at least, τί is not used in this way; see Meyer. If 


254 H. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES. | [8 139 


the reading ὅτι is genuine, this also (in view of the use just treated of, 
and that of the Sept. immediately following) may be taken in an ex- 
clamatory sense. Yet, owing to the want of precedents from other 
quarters, a positive decision in this passage cannot be given just yet. 

In the Sept. also the use of ὅτι in the sense of διὰ τί is found; as, 
1 Chron. xvii. 6 Ὅ,τι οὐκ φκοδομήσατέ poi οἶκον κέδρινον ; compared 
with the parallel passage in 2 Sam. (vii. 7) ἵνα τί οὐκ ὠκοδομήκατε ete. ; 
and the Heb. 2, which in 2 Sam. vi. 20 and Cant. vii. 6 is translated 
by τί (with exclamatory force), is rendered in Jer. ii. 86 by ὅ, τι (in 
the same signification): ὅ,τι κατεφρόνησας σφόδρα τοῦ δευτερῶσαι τὰς 
ὁδούς σου, cf. also Herm. Vis. iii. 10 sub fin., Evang. Nicod. xiv. 3. μέ In 
the combination τί ὅτι see ὃ 149, 3 p. 358. 

As respects Mood, both with direct and indirect questions 
the construction with the Indicative is by far the most com- 
mon. As this usage, which again springs from the predilection 
for direct forms of statement (hence the Present Indic. is so 
often used even in narration after historical tenses), is ren- 
dered sufficiently familiar by classic Greek, only a few exam- 
ples need be given here: Luke vi. 7 παρετηροῦντο αὐτὸν, εἰ ἐν 
τῷ σαββάτῳ θεραπεύει, John x. 6 οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τίνα ἣν ἃ ἐλάλει, 
ix. 25; Acts x. 18 ἐπυνθάνοντο εἰ Σίμων ἐνθάδε ξενίζεται, Mark 
viii. 28 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.]. Respecting Luke xi. 35 see 
above, 49 p. 243. In dependent discourse, consequently, the 
Indicative in most of the N.'T. authors takes completely the 
place of the Optative, which in this case (according to what — 


219 was said above, 11 p. 215) still appears only in the writings of 


61 


Luke: Gospel i. 29 διελογίζετο ποταπὸς εἴη, iii. 15; viii. 9; 
xv. 26; xviii. 86; xxii. 23; Actsii.12Sin.; xvii. 11; xxv. 20; 
xxi. 33 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.]. See further 62 below, p. 256. 

The mood of subjective opinion which in Greek authors so often 
comes into use in these clauses, viz. the Optative with ἄν, is found 
(agreeably to 17 p. 217) likewise only in Luke: in direct question, 
Acts xvii. 18; viii. 81, in indirect, Luke i. 62; vi. 11; ix. 46; 
Acts v. 24; x. 17; according to Tdf.’s text [eds. 2, 7] also ii. 12: 
xvii. 20; xxi. 33; as a variant in Luke xv. 26 [Treg.]; xviii. 36. 

On the other hand, after what has been said in 11 p. 215, 
and 18 p. 218, it will be easily understood that most of the 
remaining N.T. writers give admission in these sentences, in 
addition to the Indicative, to the construction with the Sub- 
junctive; here therefore in the form of the Conjunct. dubita- 
tivus or deliberativus (2 p. 208). This Subjunctive construc- 


§ 139.] THE MOODS. 255 


tion they employ both with direct and indirect questions ; 
particularly, too, after historical tenses, where classic usage 
would certainly have availed itself of the Optative with or 
without ἄν. 

That this Subjunctive is interchanged with the Fut. Indic- 
ative has already been remarked, 2 p. 208. Still more fre- 
quently, however, the fluctuation of the Mss. (and editions), 
often alluded to, between the forms (externally differing but 
slightly) of the Ist Aor. Subjunct. and the Fut. Indic., may be 
observed here also. 


As the examples of this Subjunctive in direct questions have already 
been given in 2 p. 208, we will only exhibit here (by adducing a 
number of passages) the extent of the usage in indirect interroga- 
tion (yet commonly by means of the direct interrogative word) : 

a) The Subjunctive, after leading tenses: Matt. vi. 25 μὴ μεριμνᾶτε 
τί φάγητε, xv. 32; viii. 20; Mark vi. 36; viii. 1, 2; xiii. 11; Luke 
xii. 5, 11, 22, 29; John xii. 49, ete.; after historical tenses: Mark 
ix. 6; xiv. 1,11 ἐζήτει πῶς αὐτὸν wapadot (see 37 p. 233), 14, 40; 
Luke xxii. 2, 4; Acts iv. 21, ete. 

b) The Future Indicative, after leading tenses: Matt. xxiv. 3; 
Mark xiii. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 16; after historical tenses (which takes 
place again as in ὅδ p. 248, 60 p. 254, in consequence of the discourse 
passing over into the direct form) : John xxi. 19; Mark iii. 2 [Tdf. reads 
the Pres. ], with which, according to ὃ 137, 10 p. 203, also the passages 
with ἔρχομαι, ὑπάγω and similar Presents may be reckoned, as Luke 
xvii. 20; Mark xiii. 35; John iii. 8, ete. Cf. Eph. v.15; 1 Cor. iii. 10. 

6) Both forms in one sentence: Matt. x. 19 [Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin. 
Subjunct. bis]. The recent editors are divided between the two 
forms in Mark ix. 6 [yet Treg. Tdf. now Subjunct. with Lchm.; so 
cod. Sin. ], Rom. viii. 26 [all now Subjunct., so cod. Sin.], 1 Cor. vii. 
52 sq. [ditto]; and moreover the Mss. vary in many passages, as 
Matt. viii. 20; x.:19; Mark xi. 18; Luke xii. 36; xix. 48; Phil. i. 
22, ete. 

The clauses that belong under this head with ὅπως after such predi- 
cates as ζητεῖν, συμβούλιον ποιεῖν, παρατηρεῖν, etc., have already been 
included in the previous sections (8 p. 214, 37 sqq. p. 233 sqq.). 


B. § 189, m. 66; J. § 877 Obs. 5; G. p. 156. 

Sometimes in Greek a clause placed after a leading clause is yet to 
be regarded as dependent on a verbum sentiendi understood, like 
the Homeric ai κε τύχωμι, at κε πίθηται (see reff.), the prosaic ἐάν πως, 
the Latin s? forte, the Germ. οὗ etwa, (to see) whether possibly etc. 


256 GENERAL REMARKS ON THE MOODS. [§ 1389 


Several corresponding constructions connected with various conjune- 
tions are found in the N. T., commonly with the Subjunctive or 
the Future in its stead, in Luke (after historical tenses) with the 
Optative also. An example with εἰ καί and the Subjunct. has 
already been mentioned 22 p. 221: Phil. iii. 12 διώκω, εἰ καὶ καταλάβω: 
further, with εἴ πως: Phil. iii. 11 (συμμορφιζόμενος), εἴ πως καταντήσω 
εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν (probably also a Subjunctive), Rom. xi. 14 τὴν δια- 
κονίαν μου δοξάζω, εἴ πως παραζηλώσω μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ σώσω τινὰς ἐξ 
αὐτῶν, Acts xxvii. 12 (ἔθεντο βουλὴν ἀναχθῆναι), εἴ πως δύναιντο παρα- 
χειμάσαι ; ; with εἰ dpa: Mark xi. 18 ἰδὼν συκῆν ἦλθεν, εἰ ἄρα τι εὗ- 
ρήσει ἐν αὐτῇ, Acts xvii. 27 (ἐποίησεν etc.), εἰ ἄρα γε ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτὸν 
καὶ εὕροιεν. 

Under this head belongs also the clause with the negative interrog- 
ative μή ποτε (δῦ p. 248) and the Subjunct. 2 Tim. ii. 25 δεῖ ἥπιον 
εἶναι..., μή ποτε δώῃ (better δῷ, Tdf. [Treg. Sin.?] δῴη ; ef. 87 note 
Ρ. 238) αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς μετάνοιαν i.e. waiting to see whether God may 
not perchance give etc.; as well as the similar constructions after 
δεῖσθαι to pray: Acts viii. 22 δεήθητι τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰ dpa ἀφεθήσεται 
σοι etc. Rom. i. 10 δεόμενος, εἴ πως ἤδη ποτὲ εὐοδωθήσομαι. 


GENERAL REMARKS ON THE Moops. 
Β. § 139, τα. 67; H. 88 728. 729; C. § 617; J. 85 410-414; G. App. 1. 


8 From the entire course of the preceding exposition of the 
use of the Moods in the N. T., we derive with confidence the 
four following particular conclusions: 

1) That the law respecting consecutio temporum so called, 
(in Greek more correctly modorum), viz. that in dependent 
clauses leading tenses are followed by the Subjunctive, histori- 
cal tenses by the Optative, does not apply at all to the great 
majority of the N. T. writings, and retains but a limited appli- 
cation even in the writings of Luke. In Luke the Optative 
is still recognized as the dependent mood after historical 
tenses only in certain conditional sentences (24 p. 223), in indi- 
rect question (60, 62 p. 253sq.), and once after πρὶν ἤ (33 p. 
231); but in all other dependent clauses it is no longer current. 

2» That the Subjurnctive (or its substitute the Future) 
to a great extent supplies the place of the disappearing or 
wanting Optative as a dependent mood, and also of the Opta- 
tive with ἄν as the mood of subjective assertion (cf. T, 8, 
11, 18, 21, 29, 33, 34, 87 sqq., 61 sq.). 

3) That the inclination, which begins to appear even in 

991 classic authors, to substitute the form of direct discourse for 


δ 1 39.] THE MOODS. 257 


the indirect — (agreeably to which the clauses of transition to 
indirect discourse often stand in the Indicative of that 
tense which would have been employed in direct discourse ) — 
has come in the N. T. to possess still more general sway (see 
21, 29, 36, 51, 60) ; and further, as the result of this, 

4) That the discourse often bounds quite out of the indirect 
form into the direct (see B. ὃ 139, m. 69),—a transition 
which strictly speaking involves in every instance a varvatio 
structure, and hence, with other similar cases, will receive 
particular consideration again under this heading below, § 151, 
11 p. 385. Here belongs the frequent use of direct discourse 
after ὅτε (51 p. 245), the less common direct interrogation 
after εἰ (55 p. 248), and the Imperative after ἵνα and ὅτι (37 
p. 254, 53 p. 246). 


THE IMPERATIVE. 


B. § 189, m. 72; H. ὃ 728 cf. 710a.; C. ὃ 655 cf. 597; Ὁ. pp. 549 sqq.; J. § 420 cf. 413, 2; 
G. §§ 84sqq. cf. p. 87. 


Of the periphrastic modes of expressing the Imperative, the 
categoric by means of the Future Indicative and the 
direct negative ov is not uncommon in the N.T. Although 
a similar construction occurs also in Greek writers, and else- 
where too, owing to the close relationship between the two 
forms of time (see Fritzsche on Matt. v. 48), yet the usage, so 
far forth as the Imperative is actually in this way peri- 
phrased, is in the N.T. at least derived from the Septuagint. 

For we must here consider, a) that the construction occurs almost 
exclusively in literal quotations from the O.T.; and b) that the 
expression in these quotations is for the most part negative, which 
is solely owing to the circumstance that the Imperative in Hebrew is 
not negatived, but the Future is used instead (see Gesen. Lehrg. 771 
[Gr. ὃ 125, 3.c.]), and this subsequently was literally translated by the 
Sept.; e.g. od φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύσεις Matt v. 27,1 οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον, 
οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, etc. More rarely does this use of the Future occur 
without a negation: and rather in continuation of other Futures 
already negatived (e.g. from the Sept. of Lev. xix. 12), as Matt. v. 33 
(quotn.) οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου, ---- ΟΥ of 
the Imperative, Matt. xix. 19 τίμα τὸν πατέρα καὶ μητέρα, καὶ ἀγαπήσεις 
τὸν πλησίον etc.; or with a certain difference of tone, as Matt. vii. 5 
ἔκβαλε πρῶτον ..., καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις ἐκβαλεῖν etc. (The un-negatived 

1 On the other hand, in free reference the common Greck construction is em- 
ployed: μὴ povedons, μὴ worxedons Mark x. 19; Luke xviii 20. 


258 | THE IMPERATIVE. ig 140, 


Fifth Commandment is always in the Imperative: τίμα τὸν πατέρα 
etc., side by side wich the other negatived ones in the Future, just as 
in the Sept.) 


65 From this Hebraistic cireumlocution for the Imperative we 

222 must carefully distinguish the classic Greek circumlocution, 
externally quite the same, viz. also by means of the Future 
negatived by ov, but in the form of a question; in this way 
the Greek expressed not a negative (as in the preceding case), 
but a positive command. This circumlocution, favorite with 
classic writers (see reff. and B. § 137 N. 6), is found however 
but once, and that too in Acts xiii. 10 od παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς 
ὁδοὺς κυρίου ; wilt thou not cease? i.e. cease. 


On the common periphrasis of the Imperative by means of the Aor. 
Subjunct., and that peculiar to the N. T. by means of the elliptical iva, 
see 6 p. 211 and 47 p. 241; and on the Imperative as a rhetorical 
substitute for a hypothetical clause or a participle, see 28 p. 227 
above and ὃ 144, 2 p. 290, —after iva, ὥστε, ὅτι, Nos. 37, 50, 53. 


Tue INFINITIVE. 
B. § 140, 1; Η. 88 763, 764; C. § 668; D. 88 584sq.; J. §§ 662-666; G. Chap. V. 

1 The Infinitive as the subject of a sentence with such predicates 
as δεῖ, καλόν ἐστιν, προσήκει, etc., and further as the complement 
of an incomplete predicate idea, as after the ideas to be wont, to 
be able, to be willing, etc., is very common, and needs no further 
illustration. As predicates with an Infin. following which 
are especially current in the later or biblical language, we may 
notice ζητεῖν to seek, endeavor (this occurs even in Demosth., 
e.g. Lept. p. 495, 497), ἀφιέναι to permit (on the construc- 
tion with the Subjunctive alone after ἄφες see ὃ 139, 4 p. 210), 
δέδοται, ἐδόθη (cf. 4 below, p. 261) αὐτῷ γνῶναι etc., for which 
the Apocalypse prefers to let a clause with wa follow, ac- 
cording to ὃ 139, 43 p. 238). 


It follows from what was said ὃ 139, 11 sqq. p. 215, that after the 
ideas to request (with which in the N. T. épwrav belongs), to command, 
to exhort, and the like, the Infinitive can indeed stand (most frequently 
so, always in Greek style, in the writings of Luke; as, with ἐρωτᾷν 
Acts iii. 8, δεῖσθαι xxvi. 3, παραινεῖν xxvii. 22, often after παρακαλεῖν, 
also in Paul’s writings, etc.), but in its stead, agreeably to Hellenistic 
or Common Greek usage elsewhere, a periphrasis by means of the 
Conjunction ¢vais wont to make its appearance. 

On κελεύειν see ὃ 141, 5 p. 275. 


§ 140.] THE INFINITIVE AFTER SUBSTS. AND ADJS. 959 


B. $140, N. 1; H. § 711; C. 88 598. 660; D. p.580; J. § 408; G. p. 38. 

The Infinitive Future after verbs whose idea has ref- 
erence to the Future is little used, viz. only a few times after 
μέλλειν in the Acts. The N.T. language employed instead 
either the Infin. Aorist (so especially after éAm/fev) or the 
Infin. Present (so almost always after μέλλειν). Where the 
future is to be designated more distinctly, ὅτε with the Indic. 
Future regularly makes its appearance. 

Examples of μέλλειν with the Present Infin. are found every- 


where, see the lexx.; with the Future Infin. (ἔσεσθαι) Acts xi. 28; 
xxiii. 30 Tdf. [eds. 2,7]; xxiv. 15 (25 Tdf. [eds. 2, 77) ; xxvii. 10; 


2 


2 


with the Aorist Infin. Acts xii. 6; Gal. iii. 23; Rev. iii. 2, 16; xii. 4: 


Matt. xx. 22 Vat. 

Examples of the Aorist Infin. after ἐλπίζειν, and that too (ac- 
cording to ὃ 139, 20 p. 219) uniformly without ἄν, are frequent; see 
the lexx. The Future Infin. is found once as a variant of cod. B in 
Acts xxvi. 7; on the other hand ὅτι with the Future Indicative occurs 
in Acts xxiv. 26; 2 Cor. i. 13; xiii. 6; Philem. 22. 


B. § 140, 2; H. § 767; C. §663g.; D. $586; J. 8. 667; G. 8 98. 

The simple Infinitive dependent on a substantive or an 
adjective belongs to the rarer constructions of the N.T., 
other constructions being as a rule preferred in its stead, e.g. 
ἵνα with the Subjunct., ὥστε with the Infin. (see p. 244), εἰς τό 
followed by the Infin., the Infin. with τοῦ (see below, p. 266 sq.). 

The classic mode of expression with the simple Infin. is found most 
frequently in the Ep. to the Heb. (cf. Introd. p. 1 sq.) ; as, iv. 1 κατα- 
λειπομένης ἐπαγγελίας εἰσελθεῖν (Vulg. introeundi) εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν 
αὐτοῦ, Vi. 10 οὐκ ἄδικος 6 θεὸς, ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν (Vulg. ut 
obliviscatur), v. 11 λόγος δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν (Vulg. tninterpretabilis 
ad dicendum). Here belongs also the phrase ὦτα ἀκούειν in Mark 
and Luke; in Matt. cod. Vat. [and in xiii. 9, 43 cod. Sin. also] omits 
the Infin. adjunct; so Tdf. also, ['Freg. puts it in brackets ]. 

In other cases when the Infinitive stands after substantives 
and adjectives, these latter constitute, together with a verb of 
some sort, an incomplete verbal idea of which the Infin. con- 
tains the necessary complement (injin. expletivus). 

Thus, for example, χρείαν ἔχω βαπτισθῆναι, ἀπελθεῖν, γράφειν, γρά- 
deca, etc., instead of the common δεῖ, προσήκει followed by the Acc. 
and the Infin., Matt. iii. 14; 1 Thess. iv. 91; v. 1, etc, ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα 


1In this passage authorities are equally divided between χρείαν ἔχετε (Rec. 
Grsb. [Ταῦ Treg. N*]), and χρείαν ἔχομεν (Lchm.) γράφειν ὑμῖν. Since the 


960 THE INFINITIVE. [§ 140. 


παρὰ Καίσαρος (equiv. to K. ἐκέλευσεν) ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκου- 
μένην Luke ii. 1, ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις αὕτη (equiv. to ἐχαρίσθη or simply ἐδόθη 
see 1 p. 258) εὐαγγελίσασθαι Eph. iii. 8, ὀφειλέτης ἐστὶν (equiv. to 
ὀφείλει) ποιῆσαι Gal. v. 3, ἐγένετο ὁρμὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων (equiv. to of Ἰου- 
δαῖοι ὡρμήσαντο) ὑβρίσαι Acts xiv. 5, ἀρκετός ἐστιν (equiv. to ἀρκεῖ) ὃ 
παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος ... κατειργάσθαι 1 Pet. iv. 3. Hence the Infin. is 
quite common after such predicates as ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν (1 Cor. ix. 4, 5, 6 
224 Lehm. [Tdf. Treg.]), καιρὸν ἔχειν, δυνατός εἰμι, ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν, ἱκανός 
εἰμι, ἐξουσία (sc. ἐστίν Rev. ix 10), as they all stand for the ideas to be 
able, to be unable, to be in a condition, etc. After the same analogy, 
but more free, is 1 Cor. vii. 39 (ἡ γυνὴ) ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι ; 
further pa ἐστίν with the Infin. in Rom. xiii. 11 dpa ἤδη ἡμᾶς ἐξ ὕπνου 
᾿ ἐγερθῆναι (Vulg. correctly: hora est surgere, not surgendt), Rey. xiv. 15 
ὥρα ἦλθεν θερίσαι > ἕτοιμός εἰμι, ἄξιός εἰμι etc. After all these predicates, 
however, the other and above-mentioned constructions also were wont 
more or less to appear instead of the simple Infinitive; see above. 
Remark. In Greek authors the syntactical license mentioned in 
B. note 2 p. 384, viz. of letting a Genitive (a noun) and an Infinitive 
(a verb) depend simultaneously upon one and the same substan- 
tive, although the noun standing in the Gen. strictly speaking belongs 
to the Infin. (and consequently ought to stand in the Acc.), is by no 
means rare (see Kiihner, ausf. Gr. [ed. 1] II. p. 610 [J. II. p. 042). 
An instance of it occurs in Rey. xi. 18 ἦλθεν ἡ ὀργή σου καὶ ὃ καιρὸς 
τῶν νεκρῶν κριθῆναι καὶ δοῦναι etc., consequently for the regular ἦλθεν 
ὃ καιρὸς τοῦ τοὺς νεκροὺς κριθῆναι Rom. ix. 21 ἔχει ἐξουσίαν τοῦ 
πηλοῦ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι etc. is of another sort; here we 
can either make rod πηλοῦ depend on φυράματος, or refer both words, 
the noun and the verb, to ἐξουσίαν, yet so that the Infin. serves epexe- 
getically to explain the substantive. 


earlier reading is the more difficult on account of the Active Infin., and a com- 
parison with v. 1 (γράφεσθαι) may easily have occasioned the correction ἔχομεν, 
deWette and Tdf. have returned to it. The use of the Active Infin. for the Passive 
is thoroughly established (cf. τὰ δέοντα εἰπεῖν and the like, B. ὁ 140, 2; J ὁ 667, 
obs. 5), and occurs accidentally with the same phrase χρείαν ἔχειν (but iciiowed 
by an Infin. with τοῦ) in Heb. v. 12 χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς (if with the 
majority we put a comma after ὑμᾶς, see 13 below, p. 268 notz. As χρείαν ἔχειν 
in the signification to need (which predominates here as in v. 1; hence in both 
instances €xere) according to § 132, 12 p. 164 takes the place of the impersonals 
δεῖ etc., it shares with them also the same constructions of nouns and verbs (i.e. 
Genitive and simple Infinitive). 

1 Very probably, in accordance with the style of the Apocalypse, the absolute 
Accusative also which follows according to the mss.[Sin, also] (Lchm. [Treg.]), 
τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους, is to be referred to the pervasive force of this leading 
predicate (to be punished, judged); since, καιρός being so far off, instead of the 
Genitive the subject Accus. (§ 141) could or must now make its appearance. 


§ 140.] THE ARTICLE WITH THE INFINITIVE. 261 


B. 8.140, 3; H. § 765; C. § 663h.; D. § 607; J. § 669; G. § 97. 

After complete predicate ideas also the simple Infinitive 4 
(but always alternating with the periphrastic constructions 
mentioned 3 p. 259) is still employed very frequently in the 
N. T., as in classic authors, to express the design or de- 
signed result (where in Latin the gerundial construction 
is commonly used). 


This occurs most frequently after verbs which express a motion 
or direction whither (cf. below, 16) p. 270), as ἤλθομεν προσ- 
κυνῆσαι Matt. ii. 2, τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν Matt. xi. 8sq.; Luke vii. 25 sq., 
προελεύσεται ἐπιστρέψαι καρδίας πατέρων Luke i. 17, ἦλθον καταλῦσαι 
Matt. v.17, βαπτισθῆναι Luke iii. 12, εἰσῆλθεν Χριστὸς... ἐμφανισθῆναι 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Heb. ix. 24, τίς ἀναβήσεται... . Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν Rom.-x. 6, 
7, ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ... πειρασθῆναι Matt. iv. 1, ἀποστέλλει αὐτοὺς 
κηρύσσειν Mark 111.14: cf. 1Cor.i.17; x.7(quotn.) etc. and similar pre- 
dicates, as διδόναι: ἐδώκατέ μοι φαγεῖν Matt. xxv. 35, ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ πιεῖν 
ὄξος xxvii. 84 (Pass. εἶπεν δοθῆναι αὐτῇ φαγεῖν Mark v. 48 etc.), καθὼς 
τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς Acts ii. 4; λαμβάνειν: Mark 
Vii. 4 ἄλλα πολλὰ ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν; but also after those in which 
the idea of motion recedes more: Acts v. 31 τοῦτον ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σωτῆρα 
ὕφωσεν ..., δοῦναι μετάνοιαν, XV. 10 τί πειράζετε τὸν θεὸν, ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγόν 
etc., 2 Pet. ili. 2 διεγείρω ὑμῶν τὴν εἰλικρινῆ διάνοιαν, μνησθῆναι (Vulg. 
ut memores sitts). Paul, too, avails himself not infrequently of this 225 
Infinitive to denote design (cf. 10 below, p. 264); as, 2 Cor. x. 18,16: 
xi. 2; Col. i. 22; ,iv. 6, ete. 


B. 8140, Ν.4; H. § 772; ©. § 665; D. ὃ Θ07 ἃ. Obs.; J. 8 662,5; G. § 100. 
Examples of the use of the Infinitive in parenthetic clauses, — 5 


except the phrase ws ἔπος εἰπεῖν (once in Heb. vii. 9) borrowed from 
the rhetorical classic usage, — are not found. 


THe ARTICLE (τό) WITH THE INFINITIVE. 
B. § 140,5; H. § 778; C. § 664; J. § 678 of. 670; G. 880; 96. 

The Infinitive may take the Article (τόν), and it acquires ἢ 
in this way not only the appearance, but to a certain degree 
also the nature, of a substantive, inasmuch as it is declined, 
serves as the subject or object of a clause, and sometimes (in 
addition to the article) is still more closely limited by pronouns ; 
as, 2 Cor. vii. 11 αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ κατὰ θεὸν λυπηθῆναι πόσην 
κατειργάσατο σπουδήν, Heb. ii. 15 διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ἕῇν ἔνοχοι 
ἦσαν δουλείας. In other respects the Infinitive uniformly re- 
tains its verbal nature ; since, as may be seen from numerous 


262 THE INFINITIVE. [§ 140 


examples, it does not as in other languages (e.g. Germ. Ital.) 
take the attributive adjuncts of a substantive (in the fcrm of 
Genitives or Adjectives), but always and without change the 
constructions which go with a verb as such, (and placed gen- 
erally between the Article and the Infinitive). 


Remark. Only the Infin. {jv seems to have been early construed 
quite as a substantive (like ζωή) ; hence we find it not only connected 
with an Adjective in the above passage from Hebrews, and frequently 
in the Ep. of Ign. ad Eph. written about a.p. 100: τὸ ἀληθινὸν ζῇν 
(Cap. xi.), ἐκ τοῦ προκειμένου ζῇν (Cap. xvii.), but even with the Gen- 
itive: Ep. Ign. ad Magn. I (ἡμῶν), V (αὐτοῦ) ; ad Smyrn. IV τὸ 
ἀληθινὸν ἡμῶν ζῇν. 


B, 8 140, 5a. and b., and N. 5; H. 8 ΤΊδ; C. § 664; J. § 678; 6. § 96. 
7 The Infinitive, rendered a substantive by means of the 
Article, is wont to stand 
a) As the Subject of a clause in general sentences ; 


Examples are pretty numerous. The predicate is as a rule a noun 
(subst., adj., pron.), with or without the copula, as πλεῖον, καλόν, 
αἰσχρόν, περισσόν, ἀναγκαιότερον, φοβερόν, Χριστός, κέρδος, τί ἐστιν 
(Mark ix. 10; Phil. i. 21, etc.), less frequently a verb, as Matt. xv. 20 
τὸ ἀνίπτοις χερσὶν φαγεῖν οὐ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, Rom. vii. 18 τὸ θέλειν 
παράκειταΐ μοι, τὸ δὲ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν ov, Phil. i. 29 ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη 
TO... πιστεύειν etc. 

Remark. After a preparatory Demonstrative in the leading 
clause the Infin. following stands according to rule (B. ὃ 140 N. 5) 
without the Art., the place of which is supplied by the demonstra- 
tive; as, Jas. i. 27 θρησκεία καθαρὰ αὕτη ἐστὶν, ἐπισκέπτεσθαι etc., Eph. 
iii. 8 (see 3 p. 260), 1 Thess. iv. 3 τοῦτό ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ. .., 
ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας, εἰδέναι etc., where, however, subse- 
quently (vs. 6) for perspicuity’s sake, after the intervention of several 
lengthy specifications, the last Infin. again takes the Article: τὸ μὴ 
ὑπερβαίνειν etc. Cf. with this the examples in B. lc. N. 6. 


8 b) As the Object of the clause, —if the Infinitive is not a 

mere complementary predicate of an incomplete verbal idea 

996 (6.5. ζητεῖν, βούνεσθαι, etc.), but is to be regarded as the real 

object of the predicate in the clause, and consequently serves 

as a circumlocution for an abstract substantive, so far forth as 
that is the object of the clause. 

Examples of this construction also are numerous enough: Matt. 

xx. 23 and Mark x. 40 τὸ καθίσαι ... οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν δοῦναι, Acts xxv 

11 οὐ παραιτοῦμαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν (death), Rom. xiii. 8 ὀφείλετε τὸ ἀλλή: 


§ 140.] THE INFIN. AFTER PREPOSITIONS. 2638 


λους ἀγαπᾷν (reciprocal love), 1 Cor. xiv. 39 (prophecy, speaking with 
tongues), 2 Cor. viii. 10,11; Phil. ii. 13 (the willing and the per- 
formance), ii. 6 (equality with God), iv. 10 (your care for me). In 
Phil. i. 22 also the term αἱρήσομαι is to be supplied from what follows. 
In 2 Cor. x. 2 δέομαι τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι etc. Paul has employed 
this mode of expression in a bold, almost violent, yet very expressive 
way: literally, J entreat (viz. of you) the not being obliged to be severe, 
ie. I pray you not to force me to severe proceedings against you 
(when I arrive in Corinth). In other passages the text varies, as in 
1 Thess. iii. 3 where Lehm. Tdf. Treg. have adopted the Acc. (τό [so 
cod. Sin.]) in place of the former Dat., so that now τὸ μηδένα caver Oat 
depends immediately on παρακαλέσαι ;! so in Acts iv. 18 where Lchm. 
{and Tdf.] (after B [x*]), and in Luke vii. 21 where all three editors 
omit τό. 

Remark. In this case (cf. 7 Rem. p. 262) after a preparatory 
demonstrative the insertion of the Article with the following Infinitive 
seems, so far as the few passages will permit us to form a judgment, to 
have been more usual: Rom. xiv. 13 τοῦτο κρίνατε μᾶλλον, τὸ μὴ τιθέναι 
πρόσκομμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ, 2 Cor. ii. 1 ἔκρινα ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο, τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐλθεῖν 
etc. But without the Art. in 1 Cor. vii. 87. 


B. ὃ 140, ὅ 6); H. §7798q.; C. 8. 668; D. p. 598sq.; J. § 678; G. § 94. 

The genuine Greek practice (which disappeared gradually 
in later Greek) of subjoining to a clause adverbial adjuncts 
(which in other languages are generally given by means of 
entire subordinate clauses) by means of the Infinitive use@ 
substantively and governed by a Preposition, is still in ful} 
force in the N. T., at least in the better written portions. This 
construction is employed most frequently by Luke, as well in 
the Gospel as in the Acts, by the author of the Ep. to the Heb., 
also by Paul who has quite mastered it; very rarely by Johr. 
(only four times in the Gospel), and never in the Apocalypse. 
The (old) prepositions thus used are ἀντί, διά, ἐν, εἰς, μετά, πρό, 
and πρός. In reference to their use we may note the following : 

ἀντί, but once: Jas. iv. 15 ἀντὶ rod λέγειν ὑμᾶς instead of etc. 

διά, only with the Accusative, instead of a subordinate causal clause 
with lecause (quia, eo quod ), is very common: Matt. xiii. 5, etc. 

ἐν is used in two ways: 1) in a temporal sense, to denote con- 
temporaneousness or duration, while, during ; as, Matt. xiii. 4 ἐν τῷ 
σπείρειν αὐτὸν ἃ μὲν ἔπεσεν ete., 25 ἐν τῷ καθεύδειν αὐτοὺς ἦλθεν etc., 

1 According to Lchm., Reiske, Cobet (Praef. ad Ν, T. p. 90) we are to read 
under ἀσαίνεσθαι 1.6. ἄχθεσθαι, χαλεπῶς φέρειν. [Cf Valckenaer’s Opusc. IT. 246 sq.]. 


264 THE INFINITIVE. [8 140 


Acts xi. 15, etc. In ordinary prose, as in Latin, the construction of 
the Gen.-absolute would have been preferred; hence Luke who uses 
this Infin. construction most frequently, particularly in connection with 
ἐγένετο δέ (see ὃ 141, 6 p. 276), unites both modes of expression with 


227 the same sense in one sentence, as Luke iii. 21 ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ βαπτι- 


10 


σθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανόν ;— 
or the Infin. with ἐν stands instead of an ordinary participial clause, 
and the mode of expression appears still more strange (see on this 
especially ὃ 141, 3 p. 274), as Luke x. 35 6,71 ἂν προσδαπανήσῃς, ἐγὼ 
ἐν τῷ ἐπανέρχεσθαί pe (equiv. to ἐπανελθὼν) ἀποδώσω σοι, Acts viii. 6 
προσεῖχον οἱ ὄχλοι ... ἐν τῷ ἀκούειν αὐτοὺς καὶ βλέπειν (Vulg. audientes 
et videntes), Luke xi. 87 ἐν δὲ τῷ λαλῆσαι αὐτὸν (equiv. to ἔτι λαλοῦντα) 
ἐρωτᾷ αὐτὸν Φαρισαῖος. It is not to be overlooked that the frequent 
recurrence of this mode of expression in the Gospel of Luke con- 
tributes essentially to distinguish its language from that of the Acts, 
where we meet with it far more rarely. 2) to subjoin to the predicate 
adverbial adjuncts in which ἐν preserves its proper or instrumen- 
tal force (in, by), nearly for the Lat. Gerund in the Ablative or with 
tn and the Ablat.; as, Acts iv. 29 δὸς τοῖς δούλοις gov... ἐν τῷ τὴν 
χεῖρά σου ἐκτείνειν etc., Heb, ii. 8 (Vulg. in eo guod), viii. 18 ἐν τῷ 
λέγειν ’ καινήν᾽ πεπαλαίωκεν τὴν πρώτην (Vulg. dicendo). In other cases 
it may appear doubtful (although the sense would be little affected 
thereby) whether we should allow the instrumental force or the tem- 
poral to predominate; e.g. Luke i. 21 ἐθαύμαζον ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν αὐτὸν 
ἐν τῷ ναῷ (Vulg. miradantur quod tardaret; the ordinary construction 
of θαυμάζειν however is with ἐπί, see ὃ 133, 23 p. 185; θαυμάζειν ἐν 


also occurs in Ey. Thom. 15, 2), Mark vi. 48 βασανιζομένους ἐν τῷ 


ἐλαύνειν (Vulg. in remigando), cf. Luke xii. 15; Acts iii. 26. 

Rarely for the instrumental use of the Infin. we find the simple 
Dative: 2 Cor. ii. 13 οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν pe Τίτον. Re- 
specting 1 Thess. iii. 3 see 8 p. 263, above. 

eis followed by an Infin., a construction employed by Paul with 
especial fondness (in Rom. alone seventeen times), serves 1) to state 
the design, accordingly for iva and like ad with the Gerund in 
Latin, — either connecting itself immediately with the verb, as Matt. 
xx. 19 παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εἰς τὸ ἐμπαῖξαι (Vulg. ad inlu- 
dendum), xxvi. 2 παραδίδοται εἰς τὸ σταυρωθῆναι (Vulg. ut eruct figatur ; 
for which John, who never employs this construction, says, agreeably 
to his usage, iva σταυρωθῇ xix. 16; οὗ § 139, 40 p. 236), Heb. viii. ὃ 
πᾶς ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας καθίσταται, ix. 28 ; 
1 Cor. xi. 22 οἰκίας ἔχετε εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν, xi. 88 ; Acts iii. 19; 
vii. 19, etc. ; — or forming an independent final clause, as Rom. iv. 11, 
18; xi. 11; xii. 2; xv. 8,13; 1 Cor. x. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Gal. ii? 17; 


§ 140.] THE INFIN. AFTER PREPOSITIONS. 265 


Eph. i. 12, 18 ete., and alternating with ἵνα, as Phil. i. 10; 1 Thess. 
ii. 16; Heb. ii. 17, particularly if one telic specification is dependent 
on another, as Rom. i. 11; iv. 16; 1 Cor. ix. 18; 2 Thess. iii. 9. 

2) as in classic Greek, statements of design so often include within 
themselves those of result and vice versa (see ὃ 139, 48 sq. p. 238sq., 50 
Rem. p. 244), so εἰς with the Infin. can be employed in stating the 
result, 1.6. the designed consequence, accordingly for ὥστε ita 
ut; hence it occurs sometimes as a variant in the oldest mss. instead 
of that final ὥστε (ὃ 189, 50 p. 243). In this sense many passages are 
to be taken; as, Rom. i. 20 τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα 
καθορᾶται ..., εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους : see besides vi. 12; 

vii. 4,5; 2 Cor. 1. 4; viii. 6; Heb. xi. 3, ete. 

3) it frequently stands also where ordinary usage would have been 228 

satisfied with the simple Infinitive (with or without the Art.), 
and in particular for the Infin. (Pres. or) Future after predicates 
whose signification looks forward, such as διδόναι, δεῖσθαι, ἐρωτᾷν, 
μαρτυρεῖν (obtestarz) etc., and which for the same reason admit also of 
the construction with ἵνα (8 139, 42 p. 237); as, Rom. xv. 16 διὰ τὴν 
χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Thess. 
ii. 12 μαρτυρούμενοι εἰς τὸ περιπατεῖν ὑμᾶς ἀξίως τοῦ θεοῦ, iii. 10 δεόμενοι 
εἰς τὸ ἰδεῖν ὑμῶν τὸ πρόσωπον, Phil. i. 28 τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦ- 
σαι καὶ σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι, 2 Thess. ii. 2 ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως 
σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ... μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι, 6 νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ ἀποκα- 
λυφθῆναι αὐτόν ; naturally connected with this use stands 

4) the epexegetic Infin. with εἰς τό (in respect to, to (the intent 

that), with which is to be compared the Infin. with τοῦ in 14 p. 268) ; 
as, 1 Thess. iv. 9 θεοδίδακτοί ἐστε εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾷν ἀλλήλους, Rom. iii. 26 
πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον ete., Vili. 
29; 2 Thess. i. 5 ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως ... εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς 
etc., Jas. i. 19 ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, Rom. xii. 3 
φρονεῖν eis τὸ σωφρονεῖν, 1 Cor. viii. 10, etc. In these cases we likewise 
put either simply the Infin. with to, or the Conjunction that. 

μετά only with the Accusative, and always in a temporal force lt 
(after, after that), as often in Greek authors also; as, Heb. x. 15, 26; 
Matt. xxvi. 32; Mark i. 14; Luke, Acts, ete. 

πρὸ τοῦ followed by the Infin. — likewise only in a temporal 
reference — serves frequently as a periphrasis for the conjunction πρίν 
with the Infin. (hence after positive sentences) and is interchanged 
with it: Matt. vi.8; Luke 11. 21; xxii. 15; John i. 49; xvii. 5; xiii. 


1 That in this passage interpreters have at all periods, even the most recent, 
diverged in two just opposite directions, the ecbatic and the final, is one proof 
more that the two relations (as so often with ἵνα and ὥστε) lie uidistinguished 
side by side. 

84 


12 


266 | THE INFINITIVE. [8140 


19 πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι (for which in xiv. 29 πρὶν γενέσθαι), Acts xxiii. 15 ;" 
Gal, ii. 12, ete. 

πρός, used only with the Accusative, means in accordance with its 
original signification primarily with reference to the fact that etc., as 
Luke xviii. 1 ἔλεγεν παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς πρὸς τὸ δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι, 
λέγων etc., Matt. xxvi. 12 τοῦτο ἐποίησεν πρὸς τὸ ἐνταφιάσαι με; then, 
and interchangeably with εἰς (even in the variants, as Jas. iii. 3), in 
a final signification: Mark xiii. 22; Eph. vi. 11. 

Of the other (improper) prepositions, we find used in this way 


. εἵνεκεν (for which commonly the simple Genitive appears) but once: 


2 Cor. vii. 12, on account of the preceding εἵνεκεν ; and ἕως, also but 
once: Acts viii. 40. 


Tue INFINITIVE WITH τοῦ IN THE N. T. 
Β. § 140, NN. 10, 11; H. § 781; C. ὃ 664d.; D. p. 480; J. §§ 492, 678 b.; G. §§ 948q. 
This form of expression, which in the earlier Greek writers 
is on the whole pretty rare but in later writers becomes more 


229 and more frequent, belongs to those constructions of which the 


13 


language as well of the Old T. as of the New is especially fond 
of availing itself; and which, since the limits of its employment 
were materially enlarged, contributes much to the peculiar 
complexion of the biblical diction. Hence, it is necessary to 
give here a connected exposition of the entire usage. 

The general use of the expression, however, does not prevent the 
existence of a great diversity in this respect among individual 
N. T. writers. John in consequence of his decided predilection for iva 
(8 189, 40 p. 236) makes no more use of this construction than of εἰς 
76 (10 above, p. 264) either in his Gospel or his Epistles. Matthew 
uses it often, but Luke the most frequently and with the most varied 
application (twenty-five times in the Gospel and perhaps about as often 
in the Acts). In Paul’s and the other Epp. it recedes somewhat 
before the other and similar construction with εἰς ré. In Mark and 
the Rev. we are almost in doubt whether it occurs. Cf. in genera] on 
this subject the extended discussions in Winer, p. 824 sqq. (904 sqq.), 
and Fritzsche, Com. on Matt. Excurs. II. p. 843 sq. 

The construction is founded,‘as its external form shows, in a 
Genitive relation; and hence must be understood and ex- 
plained from the nature of this case. To facilitate our review 
of the instances that occur, we will distribute them into the 
following classes: I. those in which the Infin. with τοῦ is 
governed immediately by some word contained in the leading 
clause, — which is either a) a Substantive, or b) an Adjective, 


§ 140.] THE INFIN. WITH τοῦ IN THE N.T. 267 


orc) a Verb; II. those in which the Infin. with rod stands 
more by itself, constituting a clause independent of the leading 
clause so far as the case is concerned. 

I. The Infinitive with τοῦ stands in immediate dependence 
on a term which is contained in the leading clause, and ex- 
presses an incomplete thought, to which it stands in the 
same relation as the Infin. expletivus in 3 p. 259, above: that 
is to say, it contains the necessary complement, generally in a 
final sense, of that incomplete idea, Cf. the similar construc- 
tions with εἰς τό in 10, 8) p. 265, and with ἵνα in ὃ 139, 41 sqq. 
pp.. 236 sqq. 

In accordance with the general rules respecting the Genitive 
(B. § 132, 1 and 7) this Infinitive is dependent 

a) On a Substantive. 

We should much mistake the nature of most of the clauses falling 
under this head, were we to regard the Infin. with τοῦ (after the fashion 
of the Lat. gerund in -d?) as a Gen. dependent on a noun in such a 
way that the Infin. takes pretty nearly the place of an abstract sub- 
‘stantive in like relation, as ars scribendi the art of writing. For the 
Greeks, with their copious store of abstract substantives, and the 
facility with which in case of necessity they could at any time form 236 
new ones, had almost no need of this mode of expression. On the 
contrary, the Infin. with τοῦ retains its entire verbal nature and 
force, so that it depends merely outwardly upon a substantive in 
the leading clause. This is evident, partly from the fact that it is often 
accompanied by its own Subject (in the Acc. according to the 
rules of § 141 pp. 272'sqq.), see the examples subjoined; and partly 
from the circumstance, that Latin writers in the extant cases either 
would not, or could not, have used their gerund in -di, as Rom. xi. 8 
ἔδωκεν ὀφθαλμοὺς τοῦ μὴ βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα τοῦ μὴ ἀκούειν, in Latin not’ 
oculos non videndi, aures non audiendi, but ad non videndum etc.., or, 
as the Vulg. renders it, ut non videant,...audiant. It is uniformly 
necessary, therefore, to take the substantive on which the Infin. 
appears to depend and expand it, with a verb either present in the 
clause or to be supplied, into a verbal predicate idea, upon which the 
Infinitive adjunct, whether with its subject expressed or understood, 
is then made to depend, quite in the way in which in c) below it 
depends on verbs. For example, Luke i. 57 τῇ ᾿Ελισάβετ ἐπλήσθη 6 
χρόνος τοῦ τεκεῖν αὐτήν not the time of her delivery was fully come, but 
the full time came that she should be delivered, cf. ii. 6; ii. 21 ἐπλήσθη- 
σαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ Tod περιτεμεῖν αὐτόν Vulg. not literally, as it is in the 
habit of doing: circumcidendi eum, but (Passively, cf. the note below), 


968 THE INFINITIVE. [§ 140. 


ut circumetderetur, xxii. 6 ἐζήτει εὐκαιρίαν τοῦ παραδοῦναι αὐτῶν (for 
which iva is used in the parallel passage Matt. xxvi. 16); Acts xiv. 
9 ἔχει πίστιν τοῦ σωθῆναι (Vulg. ut salvus fieret), xx. 3 ἐγένετο γνώμη 
(i.e. he resolved, hence the preceding Partic. ποιήσας in the Nom. con- 
strued ad synegin according to ὃ 144, 13 b) p. 298) τοῦ ὑποστρέφειν διὰ 
M., xxvii. 20 περιῃρεῖτο ἐλπὶς πᾶσα τοῦ σώζεσθαι ἡμᾶς, Rom. viii. 12 
ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν (equiv. to ὀφείλομεν) τοῦ ἕῇν etc., xv. 23 ἐπιποθίαν ἔχων 
(equiv. to ἐπιποθῶν) τοῦ ἐλθεῖν (cf. Phil. i. 23), 1 Cor. x. 18 ποιήσει τὴν 
ἔκβασιν τοῦ δύνασθαι ὑπενεγκεῖν (Vulg. ut possitis sustinere), Heb. v. 12 
Lechm. χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς (personal object) τινὰ (subject - 
Acc.) τὰ στοιχεῖα (material object) τῆς ἀρχῆς οἴο., 1 Pet. iv. 17 ὁ 
καιρὸς (sc. ἐστὶν) τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρίμα (ut incipiat). The Infinitive 
alone often stands in the same circumstances (as may be seen from a 
comparison of the examples in 3 p. 259), and in point of fact in some 
instances the rod has now been expunged by the editors as a later 
addition, e.g Rev. ix. 10; xiv. 15, and probably also in 1 Cor. ix. 6 
Lehm. [Tdf. Treg. ; so cod. Sin.]. The instances which approximate 
most closely to the use of the Latin gerund in -di are perhaps Luke x. 
19 δίδωμι ὑμῖν τὴν ἐξουσίαν rod πατεῖν ἐπάνω ὄφεων, 1 Cor. ix. 10 ἐπ᾽ 
ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν, although even these admit of being easily referred 
to the above category. 
44 Remark. On the other hand, the Infin. with τοῦ is often found also 
231 (quite in accordance with the examples from classic authors given in 
B.§ 140 N.11) asan epexegetic addition to an abstract substan- 
tive, as though a verba] periphrasis and explanation of it (cf. 10, 4) 
Ρ. 265): Rom. i. 24 παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ... εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι 
τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν, 2 Cor. viii. 11 ἡ προθυμία τοῦ θέλειν, Phil. iii. 21 κατὰ 
τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτόν οἴο., Luke xxi. 22 ἡμέραι ἐκδικήσεως 
αὗταί εἰσιν τοῦ πλησθῆναι πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα, Acts ix. 15 σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς 
ἐστίν μοι οὗτος τοῦ βαστάσαι τὸ ὄνομά μου, xiii. 47 (quotn.) τέθεικά σε 
εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν τοῦ εἶναί σε εἰς σωτηρίαν etc. Only in this way is to be 
explained the construction (in other respects also quite anomalous) in 
Rey. xii. 7 ἐγένετο πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 6 Μιχαὴλ καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι 
αὐτοῦ τοῦ πολεμῆσαι μετὰ τοῦ δράκοντος instead of the ἐπολέμησαν of the 
Text. Recept., which aims to avoid the harshness, but falls into another 
mistake. The Nominative is used ad synesin with the Infin., since the 
latter takes the place, so to speak, of asubordinate clause with a finite verb. 


1 So according to Lchm. ; and compare Dem. Lept. 40, where likewise three Accs. 
are united. The other construction, which Tdf. [so Treg.] follows: τοῦ διδάσκειν 
ὑμᾶς, τίνα τὰ στοιχεῖα etc. differs but little in sense, and has the interpretation of 
Origen (διδάσκεσθαι), the Vulg. (ut vos doceamini), the version in cod. Claromon- 
tan. (doceri vos) et al. in its favor. Since this construction also harmonizes with 
the genius of the language (cf. the example from Luke ii. 21 above, and § 140, 
3 p. 259 note) a decision is difficult, indeed from a grammatical point of 
view absolutely impossible. See Bleek. 


§ 140.] THE INFIN. WITH τοῦ IN THE N. T. 969 


Ὁ) On an Adjective contained in the leading clause. As 15 
a rule this also constitutes together with the copula the predi- 
cate of the clause, and the Infin. with rod contains the neces- 
sary complement. Yet, by virtue of the verbal nature inher- 
ing in Adjectives, they are also by themselves capable of this 
construction. 


The connection is the simplest when the Adjective alraady permits 
of itself the construction with the Genitive, as 1 Cor. xvi. 4 ἐὰν ἄξιον 
ἡ τοῦ κἀμὲ πορεύεσθαι, Rom. vii. 8 ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, τοῦ μὴ 
εἶναι αὐτὴν μοιχαλίδα ; but it occurs also with other Adjectives, as Acts 
xxiii. 15 ἕτοιμοί ἐσμεν Tod ἀνελεῖν αὐτόν (cf. with this the Infin. alone in 
3 p. 259), Luke xvii. 1 ἀνένδεκτόν ἐστιν τοῦ μὴ ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα, 
xxiv. 25 ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς τοῦ πιστεύειν (cf. the construction with 
εἰς τό in 10 p. 265). 

9) On a verbal idea contained in the leading clause. This 16 
is by far the most common use of the Infin. with rod. It is 
essentially identical with the two preceding constructions, and 
differs only externally in the circumstance that the governing 
predicate idea here is a verb, there a noun. Further: as in the 
construction with an Adjective, it is wholly a matter of indif- 
ference whether the verb is elsewhere construed with the 
Genitive or not; and that the Infin. with rod stands again 
in most evident analogy with the similar use of ἵνα, eis τό with 
the Infin., and the Infin. alone, may be seen on comparing the 
respective sections. 

We will classify the examples under the following heads: 


a.) the construction finds its (rather superficial) occasion in the cir- 
cumstance that the verb according to general usage is capable of being 
construed with the Genitive; as, Luke i. 9 ἔλαχεν τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι (in 
connection with nouns, however, λαγχάνειν in the N.T. is construed 
only with the Accusative, see ὃ 182, 8 p. 160 and cf. Bhdy. p. 176), 
Matt. xxi. 32 od μετεμελήθητε τοῦ πιστεῦσαι αὐτῷ, 2 Cor. i. 8 ἐξαπορη- 
θῆναι τοῦ ζῇν. 

β) the construction takes place if the verbal idea is of a negative 
kind and intimates that something is to be avoided, averted etc., these 
predicates (according to B. § 132, 4) being likewise capable of taking 232 
the Gen. [ Gen. of separation]. In this case, moreover, the negative 
μή is as a rule also added to the Infin. (cf. § 148, 13 p. 355). Luke 
iv. 42 κατεῖχον αὐτὸν τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, xxiv. 16 of ὀφθαλμοὶ 
αὐτῶν ἐκρατοῦντο τοῦ μὴ ἐπιγνῶναι αὐτὸν, Acts χ. 47 μήτι τὸ ὕδωρ κωλῦσαι 
δύναταί τις τοῦ μὴ βαπτισθῆναι τούτους ; xiv. 18 κατέπαυσαν τοὺς ὄχλους 


17 


270 THE INFINITIVE. [8140 


τοῦ μὴ θύειν, 1 Pet. iii. 10 (quotn.) παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ 
χείλη τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι ϑόλον, Acts xx. 20, 27 οὐδὲν ὑπεστειλάμην τοῦ μὴ 
ἀναγγεῖλαι ὑμῖν. The omission of μή is decidedly contrary to the main 
usage and very rare: Rom. xv. 22 ἐνεκοπτόμην πολλάκις τοῦ ἐλθεῖν πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς. 

y) after verbs of motion to indicate the purpose of the motion, 
alternating with the simple Infinitive (see 4 p. 261): Matt. xiii. 3; 
Luke viii. 5 ἐξῆλθεν 6 σπείρων τοῦ σπείραι (but in Mark iv. 3, according 
to the recent editors, without τοῦ), Luke xxiv. 29 εἰσῆλθεν τοῦ μεῖναι 
σὺν αὐτοῖς, Heb. x. 7 (quotn.) ἥκω τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημά σου, Matt. iii. 
18 παραγίνεται τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, Luke ν. 1 Lchm. ἐπικεῖσθαι 
αὐτῷ τοῦ ἀκούειν, Acts xviii. 10 ἐπιθήσεταί σοι τοῦ κακῶσαί σε. 

δ) also after other words signifying action, which need an 
additional statement to complete their thought in order to express the 
purpose or the result designed by the action: accordingly, for ἵνα 
(which may be rendered in English that ... should) after the predi- 
cates spoken of ὃ 139, 41 sqq. pp. 236sqq.; as, Jas. v. 17 προσηύξατο τοῦ 
μὴ βρέξαι (commonly iva), Acts xxi. 12 παρεκαλοῦμεν τοῦ μὴ ἀναβαίνειν 
αὐτὸν εἰς ‘I. (commonly ἵνα, ὅπως, or the simple Infin.), xxiii. 20 συνέ- 
θεντο τοῦ ἐρωτῆσαί σε (iva John ix. 22; Infin. alone Luke xxii. 5), xv. 
20 ἐπιστεῖλαι αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων (Infin. alone 
xxi. 25), Luke iv. 10 (quotn.) ἐντελεῖται αὐτοῖς τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε. So, 
moreover, after ποιεῖν (cf. ἵνα ὃ 139, 48 p. 238) Acts iii. 12, κατανεύειν 
Luke v. 7, κρίνειν Acts xxvii. 1 (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 37 var.), τὸ πρόσωπον 
ἐστήριξεν Luke ix. 51, διήνοιξεν τὸν νοῦν τοῦ συνιέναι (caused them to 
understand) xxiv. 45. In an exceptional way the Infin. with τοῦ 
stands once after ἐγένετο even: Acts x. 25 ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν 
τὸν Πέτρον (so also Act. Barn. 7), for which elsewhere the simple 
Infin. is always used (8141, 6, ¢) p. 277). Cf. the Latin μέ after 
Jit, ete. 

II. The other case — that in which the Infin. with τοῦ stands 
after complete predicates (accordingly for ἵνα in its proper 
signification, in order that, eo consilio ut), so that it is to be 
regarded as an independent telic clause —is very common ; 
and finds adequate explanation in the general use of the Gen. 
(to express causal departure and direction upon, B. § 132, 8, 
9). Hence the assumption of an ellipsis (ἕνεκα, χάριν) is 
superfluous. 

For examples see Matt. ii. 13; xi. 1; xxiv. 45; Luke i. 77, 
79; ii. 24,27; xii. 42 (Tdf.); Acts iii. 2; vii. 19; xx. 30; 

1 Classic usage would have demanded in this case the double negative μὴ od, 
(because the leading verb is itself negative, ef B. § 148 Note 6, 2) p. 427); G. p 198. 


§ 140.] THE INFINITIVE FOR THE IMPERATIVE. 271 


xxvi. 18; Rom. vi. 6; xi.10; Gal. iii. 10; Phil. iii. 10; Heb. 
xi. 5. 

Remark. In the Sept. the use of the Infin. with rod occurs to a 233 
still greater extent almost. See a great number of examples (to be 
found on almost every page) in Winer, p. 82 βα. (305). 





B. § 140, 7; H. § 784; C. 8 610; D. § 526; J. $671; G. § 101; W. 816 (296). 
Of the Infinitive instead of the Imperative, as it 18 

is sometimes used in the classics, there is no single instance 
whiolly unquestionable ; since everywhere the leading mark of 
this Infin., viz. the addition of the Subject in the Nominative, 
is wanting. The usage, too, is predominantly poetic (see the 
examples in the Gramms. ll.c., and cf. Bhdy. p. 388). Hence 
it is more correct grammatically, to regard the Absolute 
Infinitives which actually occur in this sense as resulting from 
an elliptical mode of expression ; and that is perfectly accor- 
dant with the unartificial and popular diction of the .N. T. 


In explaining them we may assume an ellipsis of the simplest pre- 
dicate, perhaps λέγω, for which analogous cases enough are to be found 
also in the N.T. writings; see $151, 24b) p. 394. This suggests 
itself most naturally, in fact necessarily, not only when the subject is 
at hand in the Accusative, as Tit. ii. 2 πρεσβύτας νηφαλίους εἶναι, 
Ζεμνόυς, σώφρονας etc. (see the analogous instances from classic authors, 
B. § 141, N. 6), but authenticates itself elsewhere also, as in the salutation 
χαίρειν, by the accompanying Dative; see ὃ 151, 24a) p. 394. The 
assumption of this ellipsis is amply sufficient in the remaining cases 
also, and the occasion of the ellipsis may always be discovered from 
the nature of the individual passage. Thus in Luke ix. 3 we are not 
to assume with many interpreters a variatio structurae in explaining 
the Infin. (μήτε... ἔχειν), ---- as if the beginning of the discourse after 
εἶπεν were direct, and then the words μήτε ἀνὰ δύο χιτῶνας ἔχειν depended 
again in indirect discourse upon εἶπεν, and subsequently in the follow- 
ing verse the discourse continued in the direct form again ; on the con- 
trary, the language is to be construed as flowing unbroken in a direct 
form,’ and with ἔχειν a predicate like λέγω, the idea of which is easily 
suggested by the context, is to be supplied. The dependent negative 


1 Discourse springs far more naturally from the (unwonted) indirect form over 
into the almost uniformly employed direct form (see § 151, 10. 11 p. 383 sq.) ; as 
is the case in the very passage parallel to the above viz. Mark vi. 9. 


272 THE ACCUSATIVE AND INFINITIVE. [8 141, 


(μήτε) was retained, because the Infin. ἔχειν (not λέγω) is negatived, 
and owing to the Imperatival cast of the entire passage, which is 
further continued in the following verses. Further, in Rom. xii. 15 
quite absolutely : χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων, κλαίειν μετὰ κλαιόντων. Here, 
too Imperatives immediately precede, from which, since the connection 
necessarily requires the Infinitives to be taken in an imperative force, 
a predicate like λέγω (or even δεῖ) is to be supplied. In supplying 
some such term here we are the more justified as the entire passage is 
conspicuous for its great laxity of structure (notice the Participial 
clauses that precede and follow, standing in like manner absolutely), 

234 merely giving the thoughts and leaving the grammatical connection of 
them entirely to the reader. Cf. other passages of the sort under the 
head of Anacoluthon below, § 151, 12 p. 386. Finally, Phil. iii. 16 
πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν occurs likewise between pure 
Imperatives, and Subjunctives in their stead; so that the apostle 
deemed the addition of a governing predicate to be no longer necessary 
for the understanding of his words. 


Tue ACCUSATIVE AND INFINITIVE. 
B. § 141, 2; H. $778; C. § 666; D. $584; J. § 672; G. ef. §§ 73. 105. 

It has often been remarked already that in the rather loose 
style of the N. T., notwithstanding great facility in handling 
this construction, the substituted conjunctions (ὅτι, iva) are 
far more frequent. And in particular, lengthy passages given 
in sermone obliquo no longer occur; because in such cases the 
direct form of statement (preferred even in the briefest 
statements) takes its place; see especially §139 E. pp. 233 sqq., 
and G. pp. 245sq. Not infrequently is a protracted oblique 
discourse avoided by a sudden transition into the form of direct 
discourse ; respecting this see in its place §151, 11 p. 385. 


John x. 36 affords an example of the great predilection for the 
direct form of statement; here, after λέγετε, the direct discourse con- 
sisting merely of a single word (βλασφημεῖς) comes in, although the 
subordinate clause which follows (ὅτε εἶπον etc.) is construed as if 
ἐμὲ βλασφημεῖν preceded, and the fact too that the entire apodosis 
begins with a Relative (ὃν 6 πατὴρ ἡγίασεν) would sooner lead us te 
expect the Infin. after λέγετε; moreover, see i. 15 and other examples 
in § 151, 1 d) p. 377, an] § 139,51 p. 245. Further, under this head 
belongs the direct discou se (current also in our colloquial speech) after 
verbs of asking, th» words of the asker himself being at once 
introduced (consequently in the Imperative) instead of the contents 
of the request in the Infinitive, as Luke xiv. 18 ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε pe 


§ 141] THE ACCUSATIVE AND INFINITIVE. 973 


παρῃτημένον, Phil. iv. 3; Acts xxi. 39 δέομαί σου, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι etc., 
Luke ix. 38 Lchm. δέομαί cov, ἐπίβλεψον, 1 Cor. iv. 16 παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς, 
μιμηταί pov γίνεσθε. In narration, however, according to custom, 
another λέγων is inserted before the direct request: Matt. viii. 31; 
xvill. 29; John iv. 31; Acts xvi. 15, ete. 


As a peculiarity in the use of this construction it is to be 2 
noticed, that the Infinitive in dependent discourse not only takes 
the place of the Indicative, but also of the Imperative (or 
Subjunctive), so far forth as it would have been employed in 
direct discourse ; and that consequently the simple Infinitive 
often includes the idea of obligation, necessity, or per- 
mission. ‘This is the case especially after such predicates as 
contain a wish, request, or summons (δεῖσθαι, εὔχεσθαι, παρα- 
καλεῖν, παραινεῖν, ἐντέλλεσθαι, etc.) ; but not infrequently also 
after λέγειν, κηρύσσειν, and the like, so far forth as they are 
used instead of the more expressive terms to command etc. 235 
(cf. 8159, 42 note 1, p. 237); further, after the predicates to 
believe, to trust, in so far as the idea to consider one’s self as 
authorized etc. is at the same time contained in them. On 
this usage, which belongs to classic Greek, cf. Bhdy. p. 371 
and the works there referred to. 


Although the Infinitive is used in this way not merely of what 
happens but of what ought to happen, yet we are not obliged on this 
account to supply ὃ εῖν in order to explain it, but the usage results 
solely from the general philological principle (see Kiihner on Xen. 
Mem. 2, 2, 1) that the Infinitive in itself is a verbal form without re- 
lation, and that it acquires in every case its more precise signification 
from the context. That sometimes (when the governing word is a 
general term, such as εἰπεῖν, πιστεύειν) ambiguity is easily occasioned 
by this mode of expression cannot be denied; hence in such cases the 
decision rests wholly with the reader who carefully examines the con- 
text. A few examples of such Infinitives after less expressive pre- 
dicates, with or without a subject expressed, are the following: Rev. 
x. 9 ἀπῆλθα, λέγων αὐτῷ Sodvai por τὸ βιβλαρίϑιον, Acts xxi. 4 ἔλεγον 
τῷ Παύλῳ μὴ ἐπιβαίνειν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, 21 λέγων μὴ περιτέμνειν αὐτοὺς 
τὰ τέκνα μηδὲ τοῖς ἔθεσιν περιπατεῖν (cf. xv. 24 Grsb.), Rom. xiv. 2 ὃς 

1 ΤῸ is surprising that Tdf. rejects this reading, ἴῃ spite of its attestation by cod. 
Sin., and has adopted ἐπίβλεψαι into his text. Nowhere in all Greek literature 
has a Middle form of ἐπιβλέπω (except the Future) been preserved ; and even the 
Sept. has ἐπίβλεψον more times than can be counted, never ἐπίβλεψαι. The 
reading εἐπιβλεψαι (cod. Vat. etc.) is to be accented ἐπιβλέψαι [so Treg.], and is 


nothing more than a (Grecizing) emendation of the Imperat. ἐπίβλεψον. 
85 


974 THE ACCUSATIVE AND INFINITIVE. [δ 141 


μὲν πιστεύει φαγεῖν πάντα (deWette: essen zu diirfen, that he may eat), 
li. 21 6 κηρύσσων μὴ κλέπτειν, ὃ λέγων μὴ μοιχεύειν, 2 Cor. iv. 6 ὃ εἰπὼν 
ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψαι, Eph. iv. 22 ἐδιδάχθητε ἀποθέσθαι ὑμᾶς ... τὸν 
παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον. So also with the Infin. after ὥστε, 2 Cor. ii. 7 ὥστε 
μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς χαρίσασθαι καὶ παρακαλέσαι; the Infin. with τό, e.g. after 
κρίνειν 2 Cor. ii. 1; Rom. xiv. 13; and the Nom. with the Infin. 2 Cor. 
x. 2, etc. 


Β. $141, N. 8; H. § 828; C. $659 J. 898, 4. 

3 An analogous instance to that quoted (B. 1.6.) from the Anab. (6, 4, 
18) —in which the leading clause is attracted by a parenthetic 
verbum dicendi and passes over into a subordinate clause with 67. — 
is found in Rom. iii. 8 καὶ (supply τῷ) μὴ; καθὼς φασίν τινες ἡμᾶς λέγειν, 
ὅτι ποιήσωμεν τὰ κακά etc., Where according to our idiom ὅτι is super- 


fluous. So likewise Ev. Nicod. 15,1 (cf. 15, 5). Cf. § 189, 51 p. 24 
and Meyer on Rom. 1.0. 


B. §141,N.4; H. § 775; C. § 667; D. § 588; J. § 673. 

4 The omission of the subject in the Infinitive clause when it 
is identical with that of the leading clause is commonly 
observed in the N.T. Yet deviations occur: the subject — 
and that, too, in the Accusative—being separately 
expressed again, 

a) after verba dicendi, especially in the 3d Pers. (in which 
case, according to §127, 14 p. 111sq., the full Reflexive 
form ἑαυτόν -ovs etc. is almost always chosen), but for the 
most part only when perspicuity and emphasis required the 
repetition ; 

b) in such Infinitive clauses as subjoin to the leading clause 
a temporal or causal limitation (§ 140, 9 sqq.), not so much for 

236 emphasis’ sake as by designating the particular subject to 
deprive the clauses of the universal character which they would 
otherwise have. 

Examples of a) after verba dicendi — in the 3d Pers. (like the 
Lat. se). Luke xx. 20 ἀπέστειλαν ἐγκαθέτους ὑποκρινομένους ἑαυτοὺς 
δικαίους εἶναι, xxiii. 2 λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι, Acts v. 36 Oevdas 
λέγων, εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν vill. 9; xxv. 4; Rey. ii. 2, 9; iii. 9; but 
αὐτόν only in Acts xxv. 21 rod Παύλου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τηρηθῆναι adrov ; 
—jin the 2d Pers. Eph. iv. 22 (see 2 above, p. 274) where the separ- 
ation of the dependent clause from its governing word (ἐδιδάχθητε) by 
the parenthetic clause occasioned the repetition of the subject (ὑμᾶς), 
2 Cor. vii. 11 συνεστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς (see ὃ 127, 15 p. 113) ἁγνοὺς εἶναι, 
Heb. x. 84 Lehm. [Treg. Tdf. Sin.] γινώσκοντες ἔχειν ἑαυτοὺς κρείσσονα 


§ 141.] κελεύειν ETC. WITH THE INFIN. 275 


ὕπαρξιν. In classic writers likewise cases of the kind are found, but 
on the whole far less frequently (see the Gramms. as above). 

b) in temporal etc. subordinate clauses (a use which in the Apoc- 
ryphal writings of the N.T. has become almost universal): Matt. xxvi. 
32; Mark xiv. 28 pera τὸ ἐγερθῆναί με προάξω ὑμᾶς, Luke x. 35 ἐγὼ ἐν 
τῷ ἐπανέρχεσθαί με ἀποδώσω cot, Xxii. 15 (ἐπεθύμησα) πρὸ Tod pe παθεῖν, 
John ii. 24 (ἐπίστευεν αὐτὸν) διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας, Heb. vii. 24; 
2 Cor. ii. 18 (οὐκ ἔσχηκα) τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν με Τίτον. The case is different 
in Rom. xv. 16 where the leading subject governing the Infin. clause 
(εἰς τὸ εἶναί pe λειτουργόν) is not ἐγώ but θεός (virtually contained in 
the Passive clause δοθεῖσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ). Finally, with regard to the 
fact that in all these passages given under b) the Reflexive form 
which according to rule ought to have appeared has not been chosen, 
see what is said § 127, 13 p. 110. 

On the Acc. and Infin. in hortatory sentences see ὃ 140, 18 p. 271. 


On THE CONSTRUCTION OF κελεύειν, AND SIMILAR WORDS, WITH THE INFIN. 


It has already been remarked, p. 237 note 1, that κελεύειν ὅ 
in the N.T. ouly admits of being construed with the Acc. and 
Infin., never of being connected with a resolved clause and 
the particle ἵνα ; and in this respect the language of the N.T. 
coincides with ordinary usage.t But the influence of the Latin 
use of jubere is unmistakable in this particular: that the 
Passive Infin. and Acc. is so often connected with κελεύειν 
instead of the Active usual in ordinary Greek. 


As a rule, where nothing but the idea is required, the Aorist 
Pass. Infin. is chosen; as, Matt. xviii. 25 ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν πραθῆναι ... 
καὶ ἀποδοθῆναι, xiv. 9; xxvii. 58, 64 κέλευσον ἀσφαλισθῆναι τὸν τάφον, 
Luke xviii. 40 ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ἀχθῆναι, Acts xii. 19 ; xxi. 33,34; xxv. 
21 (where the change from the Aor. Infin. to the Pres. Infin. is to be 
noticed, cf. xxv. 4) etc. It may be remarked further, that only 237 
Matthew and Luke employ κελεύειν; but the other writers avail 
themselves uniformly of other verbs instead, as ἐντέλλεσθαι, παραγγέλ- 
New, κηρύσσειν, εἰπεῖν, and that, too, either followed by iva, according to 


1 Only in one passage, Matt. xv. 35, is the Dative given with Infin. following by 
a considerable number of MSs. : ἐκέλευσεν τοῖς ὄχλοις ἀναπεσεῖν. This reading Tdf. 
eds. 2, 7 (even against the autherity of B and the express statement of Origen, 
which Lchm. [so Treg.] followed) has retained, out of regard for other ancient 
authorities (and especially the parallel passage Mark viii. 6), with Grsb. Ree. ete. 
(According to the concurrent testimony of codd. Vat. and Sin. however the pas- 
sage runs καὶ παραγγείλας τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ Thy γῆν ἔλαβεν ; and Tdf. 
also has rightly adopted this reading in his 8th ed.) 


276 éyévero FOLLOWED BY AN INFIN. ETC. [8 141. 


8199, 42 p. 236 sq., or the Infinitive construction. But the same unclassic 
construction with the Aorist Pass. Infin. is found after these predi- 
cates also, in so far as they are intended to represent the precise idea 
of κελεύειν ; as, Mark v. 48 εἶπεν δοθῆναι αὐτῇ φαγεῖν, vi. 27 ἐπέταξεν 
ἐνεχθῆναι τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ, Acts v. 21 ἀπέστειλαν ἀχθῆναι αὐτούς, χχν. 
21 ἐπικαλεσαμένου τηρηθῆναι αὐτόν (see 4 p. 274), xxii. 24 εἴπας μάστιξιν 
ἀνετάζεσθαι αὐτόν, 1 Thess. v. 27 (ἐνορκίζω) ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολήν. 
To the scribes who wrote the mss. (especially D and B) the construc- 
tion still seemed rather strange, and lence they often emended it into 
the Infin. Active; see the variants on Mark v. 438; vi. 27; Acts 
xxii. 24. Hence it is very probable that in Mark viii. 7 εἶπεν παρατε- 
θῆναι (Lchm.) is the original reading, — as cod. A actually gives and 
the variant παραθῆναι leads us to conjecture. The reading παρατιθέναι 
(Γαΐ, [eds. 2, 7; Treg.]), which again is supported particularly by B 
and D, might easily have arisen by correction owing to the similarity 
of form, but by its Present form does not agree well with the 
passage. The same remark holds of Mark x. 49 Lchm. εἶπεν αὐτὸν 
φωνηθῆναι; so not only by far the greater number of mss. give the 
passage, but the Latin versions also render it, which they would not 
have done if the translators had had before them the other reading 
(φωνήσατε αὐτόν, Tdf. [Treg.] after [x] B C). 


On THE CONSTRUCTION OF ἐγένετο FOLLOWED BY AN INFINITIVE AND A 
Finite VERB. 


6 A.conspicuous peculiarity of the historical style in the N.T. 
(with the exception of John’s Gospel) is the frequent occur- ᾿ 
rence of the Aoristic phrase καὶ ἐγένετο or ἐγένετο δέ, by 
which the narrative of new events is announced, and at the same 
time connected with what precedes. It arose from the familiar 
Hebrew expression m4, and passed over from the translation 
of the Seventy into the narrative language of the N.T. In 
the first three Gospels, almost without exception imme- 
diately after this formula a specification of time is sub- 
joined (likewise after the mode of Hebrew discourse): and that 
either by an adverbial phrase (ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν, μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας 
τρεῖς etc.), or by a clause with ὅτε (in Matt.) or ὡς (in Luke), 
or by a Genitive Absolute, but ordinarily by an Infinitive clause 
introduced with ἐν (8 140, 9 p. 264). The construction which 
then follows is of three forms; according as 

a) The occurrence itself (again after Hebrew precedent) is 
given ina Finite Verb connected by καί: as 
288 Mark ii. 15 καὶ ἐγένετο (Tdf. [Treg.] γίνεται without ἐν τῷ) ἐν τῷ 


§141.] ἐγένετο FOLLOWED BY AN INFIN. ETC. OTT 


κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ... καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ, cf. Luke 
v. 1,12; ix. 51; x. 88; xiv. 1; xvii.ll; xix.15; xxiv. 4,15; Matt. 
ix. 10 καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου, καὶ ἰδοὺ πολλοὶ ... συνανέκειντο, 
Luke ii. 15 καὶ ἐγένετο, ὡς ἀπῆλθον .... καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶπον, ν. 17 καὶ 
ἐγένετο ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἣν διδάσκων, καὶ ἦσαν etc., vill. 1, 22. 
Somewhat different, and departing from the Heb. idiom, is Acts v. 7 
ἐγένετο δὲ ὡς ὡρῶν τριῶν διάστημα Kal ἡ γυνὴ εἰσῆλθεν. Or 


b) The occurrence is given, indeed, ἴῃ a Finite Verb, but 
without καί. This is the most frequent construction. 


Matt. vii. 28 καὶ ἐγένετο, ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὃ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, 
ἐξεπλήσσοντο, cf. xi. 1; xiii. 53; xix. 1; xxvi.1; Luke 1. 28 καὶ ἐγέ- 
vero, ὡς ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι .. ., ἀπῆλθεν, cf. vs. 41; xi. 1; xix. 29; 
Mark i. 9 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις, ἦλθεν ᾿Ιησοῦς, cf. Luke i. 
59; ii. 1; ii. 46; vi. 12; vii. 11; ix. 37 ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῇ ἑξῆς ἡμέρᾳ, 
κατελθόντων αὐτῶν, συνήντησεν αὐτῷ ὄχλος, cf. xi. 14; xx. 1; Mark iv. 
4 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ σπείρειν, ὃ μὲν ἔπεσεν etc. cf. Luke i. 8; ii. 63 viii. 
40; ix. 18, 33; xi. 1, 27; xvii. 14; xviii. 35; xxiv. 30,51. It is to 
be noticed, moreover, that in these sentences the predicate of the lead- 
ing clause almost always stands inthe first place, ie. directly 
after the specification of time, except in Mark iv. 4; Luke xi. 27; 
xxiv. 30; xviii. 35; i. 8, where (but generally for perceptible reasons) 
this arrangement is departed from somewhat. Hence, in Luke ix. 57 
Lchm. the comma must be put after ὁδῷ ; according to the reading of 
Ταῦ, [Treg., who omit ἐγένετο] the passage does not belong under this 
nead. Or 


c) The occurrence stands (dependent on ἐγένετο) in the 
Acc. with the Infin. The subsequent facts are then 
either subjoined in a finite verb, Mark ii. 23 καὶ ἐγένετο παρα- 
πορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, Kai ἤρξαντο οἱ μαθηταί etc. 
οἵ, Luke vi. 1, 6, or follow likewise in the Infinitive, [κατ iii. 
21, οἵ. xvi. 22. 


This mode of expression, as that which approximates most nearly to 
the genius of the Greek language, is employed almost always by Luke 
in the Acts, e.g. xix. 1 ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ τὸν ᾿Απολλὼ εἶναι ἐν Κορίνθῳ, 
Παῦλον διελθόντα ... ἐλθεῖν, cf. ix. 87; xvi. 16; xxviii. 17,— he, 
besides, divesting the idiom more and more of its strictly Hebraistic 
complexion by omitting the clauses specifying time (so even in the 
Gospel, xvi. 22; further, Acts iv. 5; ix. 32,43; xiv. 1; xxviii. 8), or 
making them precede (ix. 3), and then by rendering ἐγένετο itself 
dependent on a conjunction (e.g. xxi. 1 ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο ἀναχθῆναι ἡμᾶς 
etc. cf. xxi. 5; xxvii. 44), and finally by connecting the Dative with 


978 ATTRACTION WI1H THE INFINITIVE. [§ 14% 


it (αὐτοῖς xi. 26, μοι xxii. 6). Of. Credner, Einl. ins N. ἽΝ. p. 183. 
On the construction with τοῦ and the Infin. see ὃ 140, 16, δ) p. 270. 
Remark. Also the analogous formula used in the prophetical books 
of the O.T. (nem, Sept. καὶ ἔσται followed by the Fut.) is found 
unaltered in the N. T., yet only in literal quotations, and always, 
as in the corresponding passages of the O. T., without a following καὶ ; 
as, Acts ii. 17 ἔσται ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος 
etc. 21 καὶ ἔσται, mas... σωθήσεται (cf. Rom. x. 13), Acts iii. 28 ἔσται 


939 δὲ, πᾶσα Wyn... ἐξολεθρευθήσεται (a free quotation, after the Heb., 


1 


of Deut. xviii. 19), Rom. ix. 26 (quotn.). 


ATTRACTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE INFINITIVE. 
Β. § 142, 2; H. § 774, 1.2.8; C. 8 667; Ὁ; $5888q.; J. §672sq. 

The general rule that predicative and other declinable 
adjuncts (Participles, etc.) with the Infin. stand in the Nom- 
inative if the (omitted) Subject of the Infin. is identical with 
that of the leading clause (φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί Rom. i. 22, 
ἐμαρτυρήθη εἶναι δίκαιος Heb. xi. 4), needs no further illustra- 
tion ; still less, the rule that such adjuncts stand in the Accu- 
sative when they refer to a preceding word in the same case 
(κατέκριναν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἔνοχον θανάτου Mark xiv. 64). 

Of the more refined use of Attraction (which, however, was often 
neglected even by the best. Greek authors), by virtue of which predi- 
cative adjuncts with the Infin. referring toa Genitive or Dative 
in the leading clause are put in the same case (ἔξεστί μοι γενέσθαι εὐδαΐί- 
μονι etc.), no example can be adduced from the N. T. It occurs only 
occasionally in connection with subjoined Participial adjuncts, 
although even here the Accusative has become more usual. See on 
this in its place ὃ 144, 20 b) p. 3065. 


B. § 142, N. 2; H. § 7748q.; C. $667; D. cf. § 589; J. §§ 674. 676; G. ef. $93 N. 2. 

Of the Impersonals πρέπει, προσήκει, ἔξεστι, συμβαίνει and the like, 
πρέπει (πρέπον ἐστίν) occurs in four constructions: 1) as commonly 
with the Dative and the Infin. (Matt. iii. 15) or with the Infin. to be 
supplied, Tit. ii. 1 λάλει ἃ πρέπει (sc. λαλεῖν) τῇ etc.; 2) with the 
Dative after πρέπει and a following Accusative adjunct with the 
Infin., see the example Heb. ii. 10 in §144, 20 b) p. 306; 3) the 


Dative with πρέπει is attracted by the following Infin. and as its Sub- 


ject passes over into the Accusative (Acc. and Infin.), 1 Cor. xi. 13 
πρέπον ἐστὶν γυναῖκα ἀκατάλυπτον προσεύχεσθαι; 4) in a personal con- 
struction, Heb. vii. 26 τοιοῦτος ἡμῖν ἔπρεπεν ἀρχιερεύς. "Egeorw 
(ἐξόν éorwv) has as 9 rule the Dative and Infin.; Luke, however, also 
uses the Accus. and Infin. in vi. 4 ods οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν, εἰ μὴ μόνους 


§ 142.] THE INFINITIVE. 279 


τοὺς ἱερεῖς, and according to the best mss. [Sin. also] in xx. 22 
Tdf. ['Treg.]; the Acc. occurs, besides, several times as a variant in 
cod. B (Mark ii. 26 [so Nalso, and now Tdf.]), and in Origen. Both 
these constructions (with the Dat. and with the Acc.) occur also with 
ἐγένετο in the Acts, see § 141, 6, 6) p. 277. On the construction of 
δεῖ see ὃ 131, 3 p. 147. 


B, § 142, 8.4; H. § 775; C. § 667; J. § 672, 4. 

Examples of a Nominative adjunct with an Infin. used subtan- 3 
tively with the Article, or dependent on a Preposition, are extremely 
rare (because in sentences of this kind according to N. T. usage the 
Subject of the leading clause, if identical with that of the Infin., is re- 
peated, and then stands in the Acc. according to the rule § 141, 4, b) 

Ρ. 274); as, 2 Cor. x. 2 δέομαι δὲ τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι etc. (see on 
this § 140, 8 p. 263. 

In clauses with ὥστε and πρίν we find no example of the Nomina- 
tive and Infin. ; but only of the Infin. alone, hence without the repeti- 
tion of the Subject (Matt. xxvii. 1, ete.), and of the Acc. and Infin., 240 
but with a new Subject, Matt. i. 18, ete. 


B. § 142, N. 8; C. § 667; J. § 672, Obs. 1; 678, 254. 

To such an example as ὑπέσχετο αὐτὸς ποιήσειν (in which airdsis 4 
not the Subject, otherwise it would have been in the Acc., but only an 
attributive adjunct belonging to the omitted Subject of the Infin.) 
an analogous instance occurs in John vii. 4 οὐδεὶς γάρ τι ἐν κρυπτῷ 
ποιεῖ καὶ ζητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι. For so all the editors (except- 
ing Lchm.) and the commentators read. But we cannot with many in- 
terpreters regard αὐτός as merely a resumption of the Subject; in such 
cases the language of the N. T. requires under all circumstances the 
Accusative (and that, too, of the Reflexive ἑαυτόν etc.). The examples 
quoted by Liicke (Com. Vol. II. p. 190), viz. Matt. xii. 50; Mark xy. 
43, have no force in proof of the resumptive use of αὐτός with an 
Infinitive; cf. on the other hand for the opposite use (of ἑαυτόν 
etc.) the examples cited in 8 141, 4,a) p. 274. On the contrary, αὐτός 
here has its original signification se/f, and is nothing more than an 
attributive adjunct in the Nominative belonging to the omitted subject ; 
subjoined by the writer not for antithesis (to τι} or emphasis, but solely 
for perspicuity’s sake; and hence ought not to receive much stress: 
and yet seeks himself to be manifest.'_ Against the other reading αὐτό 
(which rests, moreover, only on weak authority) Liicke declares him- 
self most positively, and with reason. According to it ζητεῖν, which 


1 For this interpretation see Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1836, p. 153. Liicke 
did not assent to it, perhaps only because he objected to the too great prominence 
given to an antithesis. 


280 RELATIVE SENTENCES. [§ 143 


everywhere else as an auxiliary verb is joined only to the simple Infin. 
and the Acc. of the Object, would be construed like a verbum sen- 
tiendi with the Infin. and the Acc. of the Subject; for this no pre- 
cedent can be found. That reading could only be justified if instead 
of εἶναι such a verb as ποιῆσαι followed. 


RELATIVE SENTENCES. 

B. § 148; Η. §§ 511 sqq. 807 sqq.; C. §§ 551 sqq. 562.a.; D. §§ 401 8q.; J. $§ 818 5ᾳ. 833 Obs. 2. 
1 As a special peculiarity in these sentences mention must first 
of all be made of an indubitable Hebraism which has passed 
over from the language of the Old Testament into certain parts 

of the New. | 
The Seventy, in translating the original, very commonly im- 
itated the Hebrew mode of expressing the Relative (ntjx with a 
separated Personal pronoun following) in this way: to the 
Relative Pron., placed at the beginning of the Relative clause, 
they subjoined (but never immediately, and likewise only 
in the oblique cases as in Hebrew) the Pron. αὐτός in the same 
case: e.g. the Acc. Lev. xvi. 32 ὃν ἂν yplowow αὐτόν (irx~tx), 
241 the Gen. Ruth iii. 2 οὗ ἧς μετὰ τῶν κορασίων αὐτοῦ (=x with 
suffix following), the Dat. Neh. viii. 12 ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, οἷς 
ἐγνώρισεν αὐτοῖς (nmb~-ix), 1 Kings xiii. 10 ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, ἡ ἦλθεν 
ἐν αὐτῇ (max); fr equently also with the Preposition repeated 
and with Adverbs, as Ex. iv. 17; Lev. xi. 32, 34; Josh. xxiv. 
13, etc. In Greek authors a sisnilcr construction only, not the 

same, is found; see Fritzsche ad Lucian. p. 109. 


In the N. T. the Hebraizing language of the Apocalypse most fre- 
quently employs this mode of expressing relation, and that without 
laying in the least any sort of emphasis thereby upon the pronominal 
adjunct ; as, iii. 8 ἣν οὐδεὶς δύναται κλεῖσαι αὐτήν, Vii. 2 οἷς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς, 
9; xx. ὃ; xiii. 12; and likewise with the Relative adverb, ὅπου... 
ἐκεῖ xii. 6 Tdf. [socod. Sin.], 14,dmov ... ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν xvii. 9. In other 
writers it occurs only as a somewhat rare exception, e.g. Mark vii. 25, 
and probably rather in certain national sayings, as Matt. iii. 12 ; Luke 
iii. 16, 17; Mark i. 7, or in quotations from the O. T., as Acts xy. 17 
(ἐφ᾽ ods ... ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς), Rom. iii. 14 cod. B, 1 Pet. ii. 24 Tdf. [x*] οὗ 

« GUTOV. 

But the emphatic addition of αὐτὸ τοῦτο to 6 (quod ipsum) Gal. ii. 
10 (cf. Lucian. Abd. 6) does not belong here ; and αὐτός in the Nom- 
inative can in Relative clauses have only the signification se/f: 1 Pet 
ii. 24. 


5143] | CONSTRUCTION OF RELATIVE SENTENCES. 281 


B. §148,2; H. 8 δ08 .; C. $496; J. § 818. 

The general rule, that in Relative clauses which refer back ! 
to the First or Second Person the verb must stand in the 
same Person, is not disregarded in the New Testament, (but 
commonly a Participle then takes the place of the Relative 
clause, see § 144, 9, Ὁ) p. 294). Hence we find in John viii. 
40 ἄνθρωπον... ὃς λελάληκα, because ἄνθρωπον is in apposi- 
tion with the we preceding. 

Rev. ii. 24 ὑμῖν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς τοῖς ἐν Θυατείροις, ὅσοι οὐκ ἔχουσιν etc. 
is, indeed, a deviation; but the construction is to be referred to the 
underlying simple thought, to those among you (rots λοιποῖς) who have 
not etc., hence to be explained as a constr. ad synesin. 


B. § 143, 4; H. $513b.; C. $500; D. p.362; J. § 821, 8. 

That the Relative (ὅς, ὅστις.) conforms in Gender to the 3 
Substantive of its own clause, instead of that of the preced- 
ing clause to which it strictly refers, is a very common con- 
struction in the N. T. also, as may be seen from the examples ; 
with which in general § 129, 6 p. 128, should be compared. 

Mark xv. 16 αὐλῆς 6 ἐστιν πραιτώριον, Acts xvi. 12 Φιλίππους, ἥτις 
ἐστὶν πρώτη πόλις, Gal. iii. 16 σπέρματι, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός, Col. i. 27 Taf. 
and Eph. i. 14 Tdf. [Treg.] (where both readings, ὅς [so ἐξ] and 4, are 
almost equally attested), vi. 17; iii. 13 (but in Col. iii. 5 ἥτις probably 
refers only to πλεονεξία), 1 Tim. iii. 15; 1 John ii.8; Rev. iv. 5 Lchm. 
[Tdf. Sin.], v. 8 (if we refer ai to θυμιαμάτων). This construction is 
in most cases more natural than the regular one; especially if the 
predicate in the Relative clause is a Personal pronoun, as 1 Cor. iii. 17. 


ConsTRUCTIO AD SYNESIN WITH THE RELATIVE. 242 
B. $148, 5; H. § 523; C. § 499; D. p. 862; J. § 819. 

With the contents of this paragraph must be compared the 4 
detailed statements made previously : §$ 127, p. 105 sq. ; 123, 
p. 80; 129, p. 129sq. What was there said applies in general 
in its full extent to Relative sentences also. Referring, there- 
fore, as respects the general subject to those sections, we give 
here at once the examples relating to Relative sentences : 

a) The Relative in the Singular refers to an antecedent 
Plural; as, 

Acts xxiv. 11 οὐ πλείους εἰσίν μοι ἡμέραι δώδεκα ἀφ᾽ ἧς (sc. ἡμέρας) 
ἀνέβην ; and there is no reason for explaining otherwise the Sing. in 
Phil. iii. 20: ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει, ἐξ οὗ (sc. οὐρανοῦ) καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδε- 
χόμεθα, ---- the license here is the more natural as the preceding Plural 

86 


289 CONSTRUCTION OF RELATIVE SENTENCES. [8 143. 


is to be understood only as a Singular and the word (οὐρανός) is used 
indiscriminately in both numbers ; see p. 24. 

b) The Relative in the Plural refers to a collective term 
in the Singular ; as, 

Luke vi. 17 πλῆθος πολὺ, ot ἦλθον, Acts xv. 86 κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν, ἐν 
αἷς etc., xxii. 5 πᾶν τὸ πρεσβυτέριον, παρ᾽ ὧν etc. But in Rom. vi. 21 
before ἐφ᾽ οἷς an idea like τοιαῦτα or τοιούτους sc. καρπούς is to be sup- 
plied, according to § 127, 5 p. 105. 

c) The Relative accords with the natural Gender of its 
antecedent substantive (cf. ὃ 123, T p. 80): — most trequenay 
after τέκνον, texvia, stands in the Masculine. 

Gal. iv. 19; John i. 18; 2Johbn 1; Philem.10. Further, παιδάριον 
ἕν, ὅς John vi. 9, ἔθνη of Acts xv. 17; xxvi. 17, cf. Rom. ii. 14 8q,, 
θηρίον ὅς Rev. xiii. 14 (Ree. 6 [so cod. Sin.]), ὀνόματα of iii. 4 (Lehm. 
[T.Tr.Sin.]4@). Then in reference to the Person of Christ: κεφαλὴ ds 
Col. ii. 19, and in the celebrated passage 1 Tim. iii. 16 according to 
the reading now (and indeed by Griesbach) received: μυστήριον, ὃς 
[so x] ἐφανερώθη etc.; see the commentaries on the passage, and cf. Col. 
i. 27; Eph. i. 14 in 8 p. 281. 

Remark. Under this head also must be brought the case, where the 
Relative, if referring to material or abstract objects, stands in the 
Neuter Plural instead of the Mase. or the Fem. (as in the case 
of the Demonstrative αὐτά 8.127, 8 p. 106), having less regard to the 
grammatical gender of the word, than to the general neuter idea (of 
things etc.) which it expresses; cf. §129, 4 p.127. Thus in Acts xxiv. 
17 sq. Tdf. [eds. 2,7], the oldest mss. [Sin. also, followed by Lehm. 
Treg. and now Tdf.] give, indeed, ἐλεημοσύνας ποιήσων καὶ προσφοράς, 
ἐν αἷς etc.; but this reading betrays more the correcting hand of the 
copyists than the common reading ἐν οἷς, 

d) The Relative refers to a noun which is only implied in 
the leading clause (cf. § 127, 8 p. 106). 

2 Pet. iii. 1 ταύτην δευτέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολὴν, ἐν αἷς etc. where 
from δευτέραν ἐπιστολήν the term “two letters” is to be educed; Phil. 
ii. 15 τέκνα θεοῦ μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς, ἐν οἷς (ἀνθρώποις τῆς γεν. σκολ.) 
etc. 

B. § 143, 6; H. §§ 248. 625 8.; C. § 557; D. $892; J. § 834. 
243 Relative clauses are naturally and originally subordinate or 
5 secondary clauses, and hence strictly ought always to append 
only subordinate thoughts immediately dependent on the 
leading clause, or adjuncts of individual members of it. But 
the influence of Latin upon the later Greek language is un- 


§143.] | CONSTRUCTION OF RELATIVE SENTENCES. 283 


mistakable, in the fact that Relative clauses so often either 
stand in Latin style quite at the beginning of a sentence, or 
serve as a continuation of the leading clause; yet in such a 
way that in both cases they contain leading thoughts, and 
thus assume the relation of co-ordinate leading clauses 
(hence ὅς is equivalent to καὶ οὗτος, et hic etc.). 


Yet this usage is employed less by those authors who wrote in the 
popular language, than by those who wrote a literary and periodic style. 
Hence this mode of expression, though originally the less idiomatic, is 
found most frequently of all in the writings of Luke, particularly in 
the Acts; often also in the Epistles, because these compositions strive 
after an extended periodic structure. This is less the case in the 
Evangelists, even in the discourses which occur there. A portion of 
these clauses still evince their characteristic as subjoined leading 
clauses by inserting immediately after the Relative the additional con- 
nective καί (just as in the German sentence was er auch that). 

Examples are very numerous. a) Without καί: John xix. 
17 (but not vi. 21 where εἰς ἣν ὑπῆγον is a subordinate adjunct to 
γῆς)» Acts νυ. 16, 86; vil. 20; ix. 385, 39; xi. 28; xiv. 8,9; xvii. 10; 
xxvi. 12 (ἐν οἷς), 19 (ὅθεν quare), xxviii. 15; Gal. iv. 24, etc. On Acts 
xxiv. 14 see 8 161, 10 p. 383; on Rom. xvi. 27 ὃ 144, 7 p. 293. 

Ὁ) With καί: Luke x.30; Actsi.11; x.39; xii. 4; xiii. 22; xxviii. 
10; Gal. ii. 10, ete. On Acts xxiv. 6 see ὃ 144, 7 p. 293. Cf. also 
§ 149, 8f) p. 363. This combination is common in later authors. 


B. § 143, 7 b.; H. §818 Rem. d.; C. § 562; J. 8 833. 2. 

The usage that when two successive co-ordinate Relative 
clauses have one and the same antecedent the Demonstra- 
tive (αὐτός) takes the place of the Relative in the second 
clause, harmonizes so closely with the character of the popular 
language (hence it is so frequent even in Homer) that in the 
N. T. also many examples of it are found, as Luke xvii. 31 
Os ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ δώματος καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἐν TH οἰκίᾳ, μὴ 
καταβάτω, cf. xili.4; John i. 88; Acts iii. 18 Tdf. [ed. 8 omits 
αὐτόν, So ἃ], 1 Cor. viii. 6; 2 Pet. ii. 3, etc. 

A portion of these instances may be fitly traced also to the circum- 
stance that the N.'T. writers were familiarized by the O. T. with sud- 
den transitions from relative, participial, and other subordinate clauses 
to leading clauses (in continuation of the subordinate clauses; cf. on 
the Hebrew, Gesen. Lehrg. 802), and hence often employed this 
construction of their own accord; see on this in its place ὃ 151, 8 sq. 
Ρ. 381 sq. 


984 CONSTRUCTION OF RELATIVE SENTENCES. [8 143. 


Remark. Also of the more delicate construction (cf. B. § 148, 8; 
J. 8 825), when the case of the Demonstrative occurring in a closely 
244 connected subordinate clause following the Relative is assumed 
by the Relative, and, the Demonstrative being dropped, both clauses 
are thus blended externally into one (as οἷς ἐάν τις δῷ equiv. to οἵ, ἐάν 
τις αὑτοῖς δῷ), an example occurs (so far as the great fluctuation of the 
MSS. permits us to discover the text) in Matt. vii. 9 Tdf. [ed. 7; ed. 8 
om. ἐὰν, so Treg. cod. Sin.]: τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐὰν αἰτή- 
σει (1.6. ὅς, ἐὰν αὐτὸν αἰτήσει) ὃ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον, μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; 
In this case we encounter the additional irregularity that the last 
clause, instead of continuing the Relative construction, passes over into 
a direct question introduced by μή, Cf. the parallel passage from 
Luke in § 151, 10 p. 384. According to the other reading (which drops 
ἐάν) the Relative construction alluded to disappears. 


B. § 143, 12; H. § 809; C. 8 δδ4 ο.; D. p. 864; J. § 824, IL. 


7 Examples of Relative clauses where the governing noun (or 
antecedent so-called) is incorporated into the Relative 
clause (but without the Article and not immediately after the 
Relative) are, Mark vi. 16 ὃν ἐγὼ ἀπεκεφάλισα ᾿Ιωάννην, οὗτος 
ἠγέρθη, Luke i.4; xxiv. 1 φέρουσαι ἃ ἡτοίμασαν ἀρώματα, John 
vi. 14, ete. On Phil. iii. 18; Philem. 10, etc. see § 123, 3 p. 
TT sq. 


Slightly anomalous is Acts xxi. 16 συνῆλθον ... ἄγοντες παρ᾽ ᾧ ἕενι- 
σθῶμεν Μνάσωνί τινι Κυπρίῳ, ἀρχαίῳ μαθητῇ. According to the above 
rule this would express the following thought: ἄγοντες Μνάσωνά τινα 
Κύπριον, παρ᾽ ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν ; so in fact it is understood by the Vulgate 
(which here is guided by a correct grammatical instinct) and several 
expositors. But the context and probable facts in the case stand 
opposed to this, and require the meaning (which Luther, de Wette, et al. 
express) who led us TO a certain Mnason etc. Many, among them 
Winer 214 (201), have accordingly explained the Dative Μνάσωνι as 
a species of local Dative, made it depend immediately on ἄγοντες, and 
resolved it by πρὸς Mvdowva. Not only has this interpretation (as 
deWette has remarked) its difficulty, but, apart from the rarity of such 
a Dative, the Greek would not be good; since in this case the words 
must of necessity have been arranged thus: ἄγοντες (sc. ἡμᾶς) Mvaowvi 
τινι Κυπρίῳ, παρ᾽ @ etc. The position of the words, moreover, is the 
very thing which forces us to the only correct interpretation (proposed 
by Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 177), according to which the words 
are indeed to be construed according to the above rule, but as follows: 
ἄγοντες (ἡμᾶς) rapa Μνάσωνά twa Κύπριον, zap etc. This gives, too, 


§ 143.] ATTRACTION IN RELATIVE SENTENCES. 285 


the sense demanded by the majority of interpreters, and alone suited 
to the passage. The contraction of the two clauses into one is easily 
explicable, owing to the similarity of the two adjuncts (παρά τινα and 
παρά τινι), and acquires still more grammatical probability if we sub- 
stitute in the first place παρά with the Dative. For this use of a Dat. 
dependent on a Preposition with a verb of motion is by no means 
unusual, and is found both in Greek authors and in the N. T.; see 
§ 147 under παρά p. 339. The omission of the object ἡμᾶς, at which 245 
however no one would take offence, occasioned the erroneous assump- 
tion (early disseminated by the rendering of the Vulgate) that Mva- 
σωνα was the object of ἄγοντες. If this were what Luke had wanted to 
say, he would for perspicuity’s sake not only have placed Μνάσωνα in 
the Accusative immediately with ἄγοντες, but probably also have 
subjoined a local specification, as ἐκεῖθεν etc. 


ATTRACTION IN RELATIVE SENTENCES. 
Β. § 148,18; H. § 808; C. §554a.b.; D. § 402; J. ὃ 822. 

Of the constructions pre-eminently peculiar to the Greek ὃ 
tongue, perhaps none became more the usage of all times and 
dialects, than that known under the name of Attraction in 
Relative sentences. It is so thoroughly rooted in the craving 
for external symmetry inborn in all native Greeks, and in the 
general propensity to subordinate grammatical precision of ex- 
pression to beauty of form, that it passed over also into the 
popular language and almost suppressed the regular form of 
expression.! Hence numerous examples of it, moulded thor- 
oughly in the spirit of the best Greek prose, are found in all 
parts of the N. T.: — most frequently, again, in Luke, yet also 
not seldom in John and in the Epistles, less prominently in 
Matt., Mark, and the Revelation. In the Sept. also this con- 
struction is current (see eg. Deut. xiv. 23; xv. 18; xvi. 2, 
58, 18, etc.). 

We will arrange the examples as follows (cf. B. l.c.): 


Ordinary examples of the Genitive (according to the model 
μεταδίδως αὐτῷ τοῦ σίτου obrep — instead of ὅνπερ ---- ἔχεις) : Matt. xviii. 


19; Luke v. 9 [Treg. and] B, xv. 16; John iv. 5, 14; vii. 89; xv. 


1 In fact examples are not wanting where the regular construction has been 
altered into the other by the copyists, or at least it is very doubtful which read- 
ing was the original one; see below, and the variants on Mark xiii. 19 (Lchm. 
[Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] ἥν), xiv. 72; John ii. 22 (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] ὅν), 
iv. 5, 50 (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.] ὅν), vii. 39; Tit. iii. 5 (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. Sin.] &), 
Rev. i, 20(Lchm. [T. Tr. Sin.] οὕς) ; cf. the note on 9 p. 286. 


286 ATTRACTION IN RELATIVE SENTENCES. [$ 143. 


20; xxi. 10; Acts i. 1; iii. 21, 255 vii. 17, 45; ix. 36; x. 39; xxii. 
10; 1 Cor. vi. 19; 2 Cor. i. 6; x. 8; Eph. i. 8; Tit. iii. 6; Heb. ix. 
20 (quotn.), vi. 10; Jas. ii. 5; 1 Pet. iv. 11; 1 John iii. 24; Jude 15. 

Ordinary examples of the Dative (according to the model εὖ 
προσφέρεται τοῖς φίλοις ots — instead of ovs — ἔχει) : Matt. xxiv. 50; 
Mark vii. 13; Luke ii. 20; v. 9; ix. 48; xii. 46; xxiv. 25; John 
xvii. 5,11; Acts ii. 22; vii. 16: xvii. 81; xx. 38; 2 Cor. xii. 21; 
Eph. ii. 10; 2 Thess. i. 4; Rev. xviii. 6. 

It is to be noticed that in the majority of the passages referred to 


246 there is not the least fluctuation in the text; only cod. D has some- 


9 


10 


times (quite alone) the Accusative instead of the other two cases. 


B. § 143, 14; H. $809; C. § 558; D. p. 8648q.; J. § 824.11. 

The noun of the antecedent clause is incorporated into the 
Relative clause (but according to 7 p. 284 not placed imme- 
diately after the Relative) and assumes also the case of the 
Relative; as, 

Luke iii. 19 περὶ πάντων ὧν ἐποίησεν πονηρῶν ὁ Ἡρώδης, xix. 37 περὶ 
πασῶν ὧν εἶδον δυνάμεων, Rom. iv. 17 (see 11 p. 287). Similar is 2 Cor. 
x. 13 κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανόνος, οὗ ἐμέρισεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς μέτρου, ἐφικέσθαι 
ἄχρι καὶ ὑμῶν (see de Wette). Here belongs also Acts xxv. 18 if we 
adopt [so Treg.] the text of B E ete. viz. περὶ οὗ of κατήγοροι οὐδεμίαν 
αἰτίαν ἔφερον, ὧν ἐγὼ ὑπενόουν tovnpav.! 


Β. § 148, 15; H. 8.810; C. ὃ 664 Ν.: J. § 822. 3 

The noun or pronoun (τούτων, τούτοις, etc.) in the antece- 
dent clause is wholly omitted so that the Relative stands quite 
alone in the case which properly does not belong to it, accord- 
ing to the example μεμνημένος ὧν ἔπραξε (i.e. τῶν πραγμάτων, 
ὧν for ἃ ἔπραξε) ; also when dependent on a Preposition (ef. 
§ 127, 5 p. 104 sq.): μὴ θορυβεῖτε ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἂν λέγω. 

Luke ix. 36 ἀπήγγειλαν οὐδὲν ὧν ἑώρακαν, xxiii. 41 ἄξια ὧν ἐπράξαμεν 


1 Whether the last word πονηράν or πονηρῶν, pronounced superfluous by 
many commentators (condemned also by Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] but given by the oldest 
Mss. [N* πονηρά]) is to be admitted into the text, is a question on which textual 
criticism has probably yet to come to a decision. Grammatically viewed there is 
nothing against the addition in either form. But (in opposition to Meyer [?]) the 
preference is probably to be yielded to the reading πονηράν (adopted by Lchm. 
[Tdf.]) as the less common, because here the change of πονηράν into πονηρῶν would 
take place even more easily than usual, owing to the position of the word; ef. the 
preceding note, p. 285. The meaning is: Among all the accusations which they 
brought forward, there was not, as I surmised, a bad one (they brought forward no bad 
one). Both the alteration of the word into πονηρῶν and its omission (since it is 
contained by implication in ὕπενόουν) may very easily have been the work of cor- 
recting copyists or commentators. 


§ 143.] ATTRACTION IN RELATIVE SENTENCES. IST 


ἀπολαμβάνομεν, John vii. 31 πλείονα σημεῖα ποιήσει ὧν οὗτος ἐποίησεν, 
xvii. 9 (ἐρωτῶ) περὶ ὧν δέδωκάς μοι, Acts viii. 24; xxi. 19, 24 (arising 
from & κατήχηνται quae docentur), xxii. 1ὅ ; xxv. 18 (see the note on 
9 p. 286); Rom. xv. 18; 1 Cor. vii. 1; 2 Cor. xii. 17; Eph. iii. 20; 
Heb. v. 8 ἔμαθεν ad’ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν, 2 Pet. ii. 12 ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦ- 
ow βλασφημοῦντες. Here belong also Acts xxvi. 22 (where the Par- 
ticiple too is drawn into the attraction; see § 144, 20 p. 305), and 
xxvi. 16 respecting which see 11 below. 


All the examples quoted hitherto follow strictly the leading it 
rule of attraction, viz. that the Relative if unattracted would 
have stood in the Accusative. Butso great was the fondness 
for this construction that it was employed also where, strictly, 
attraction was not grammatically admissible. For, since by 247 
means of it members belonging together could be so joined 
tegether as to blend into one externally rounded and recog- 
nizable whole, the N. T. writers were unwilling to be deprived 
of this advantage even in cases where strict usage was opposed 
to it. 


A portion of these cases may, to be sure, be referred to constructions 
with the Accus., as 2 Cor. i. 4 τῆς παρακλήσεως ἧς παρακαλούμεθα, Eph. 
i. 6 Lehm. [Treg. Tdf. δι᾽] τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς, iv. 1 
τῆς κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε (cf. 1 Kings viii. 29 τῆς προσευχῆς ἧς προσεύχε- 
ται), ----- all which are founded on the familiar construction treated of 
§ 131, 5 p. 148. More free, yet sustaining a certain analogy to the 
same usage, are Acts xxiv. 21 φωνῆς ἧς ἔκραξα (cf. Isa. vi. 4 τῆς φωνῆς 
ἧς ἐκέκραγον) and Jude 15 τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ἠσέβησαν. But 
the following stand out of all analogy: 2 Thess. i. 4 θλίψεσιν αἷς 
ἀνέχεσθε (see however ὃ 132, 9 p. 161), Acts i. 22 ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἧς 
ἀνελήμφθη (Vulg. gua adsumptus est), Rom. iv. 17 κατέναντι οὗ ἐπί- 
στευσεν θεοῦ ante deum, cuz credidit (since in this sense πιστεύειν τινά is 
wholly contrary to usage; see ὃ 133, 4 p. 178 sq.), 1 Tim. iv. 6 var., 
Acts xxvi. 16 μάρτυρα ὧν τε εἶδες ὧν τε ὀφθήσομαί σοι (quibus apparebo 
- tibi). In this last passage the first clause ὧν τε εἶδες is perfectly reg- 
ular, but the second is drawn into the attraction manifestly only for 
symmetry’s sake, which is not readily sacrificed to grammatical strict- 
ness by a Greek writer (like Luke)’; cf. Jude 15. On Acts xiii. 39, 
however, see § 147, 30 p. 342. 


B. 8148, Ν. ὅ; Η. § 8lla.; C. $554.d.; D. p. 364; J. § 822 Obs. 10. 
Relative Adverbs also sometimes undergo attraction. Examples 12 


1 The variation of cod. Vat. and sundry versions (ὧν εἶδές we etc.) can only be 
founded in a misunderstanding of the passage (perhaps cf ὧν for as). 


288 THE PARTICIPLE. [8144 


from the N. T. are Matt. xxv. 24, 26 συνάγω ὅθεν (equiv. to ἐκεῖθεν 
ὅπου) ov διεσκόρπισα. Cf. with this ὃ 127, 5 p. 105 and the similar 
kind of attraction in 8 151, 2 p. 877. 


B. 8148, 17; H. 8.817; C. § 584¢.; Ὁ. § 404; J. § 824. 

13 Of the so-called attractio inversa—(a species of anacoluthon 
where the antecedent is attracted by the Relative and takes its 
case ; see the details in the general Grammars) —a few wholly 
unquestionable instances are found. 

Thus in the oft-repeated quotation from the O.T. (Ps. exvii. 22) 
λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, otros ἐγενήθη etc. Matt. xxi. 
42, ete.; but in 1 Pet. ii. 7 Lchm. [Treg.] λίθος ὅν [λίθον ὅν Taf. x*]. 
Further, Luke i. 73 (διαθήκης), ὅρκον ὃν ὥὦμοσεν πρὸς “ABpadp ete., 
1 Cor. x. 16 τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία ἐστὶν etc. On Acts 
x. 86 Tdf. [5] see ὃ 131, 18 p. 153sq. An antecedent general pro- 
nominal idea is likewise attracted by the Relative in Luke xii. 48 
παντὶ ᾧ ἐδόθη πολύ, πολὺ ζητηθήσεται wap airod. Cf. here § 151, 
4p. 379. 

B. § 143, 19; H. ef. § 822; 868 Ὁ.; 757; C. § 641; J. 836, 6.7; 6. § 60. 
144 <A general Relative clause (ὃς ἄν etc.) sometimes takes the place of 
248 a conditional clause with ἐάν (also a species of anacoluthon) ; 
as, Matt. x. 14 ὃς ἂν μὴ δέξηται ὑμᾶς .... ἐξερχόμενοι ἐκτινάξατε τὸν 
κονιορτὸν etc., xxiii. 16, 18 ὃς ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ ναῷ, οὐδέν ἐστιν. Cf. the 
opposite case in ὃ 149, 6 p. 360. 


THE PARTICIPLE. 
Β. 8 144; H. § 784D.; C. § 678; J. § 662; G. Chap. vi. 

1 With respect to the use of Participles by the several N. T. 
writers a few general remarks must first be premised. As in 
course of time Infinitive constructions in the ancient languages 
were gradually resolved into conjunctional. clauses (δ 141, 1 p. 
272), the like takes place also with the Participle. Every one 
conversant with Greek literature knows with what predilection 
in its classic period participial constructions are employed, and 
how the entire system of its structure of sentences depends in 
great part on the employment of these clauses. Yet the arti- 
ficial periodic structure produced by their aid is rather a pro- 
duct of the refined (rhetorical) literary language and re- 
mained pre-eminently a characteristic of it, while the plain 
popular language of all periods — (read the lively and circum- 
stantial descriptions, narratives, comparisons of Homer) — 
preferred, instead of lengthy and involved periods, to give, 


§ 144.] THE PARTICIPLE. 289 


a 


rather, the individual members as independent clauses with a 
finite verb, and to indicate the mode of their connection by 
some of the simplest particles. Since, moreover, this analytic 
mode of construction suited more the genius of Oriental ex- 
pression (and accordingly prevails in the books of the O. T.), 
it was natural that, particularly in the language of the 
Gospels marked especially by the national peculiarities 
(Luke’s not excepted, cf. § 141, 6 p. 276), the employment of 
participial constructions should noticeably recede before the 
construction by means of finite verbs, and that numerous com- 
binations by means of conjunctions (especially «a/) are pre- 
ferred where the classic literary language would without doubt 
have availed itself of the construction with the Participle, or 
of other subordinate dependent clauses. 


The following passages will illustrate in general what has been said : 
Matt. vii. 27 καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν ot 
ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἔπεσεν, καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς 
μεγάλη, viii. 14--16 καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς etc., Mark i. 12,13; Luke xviii. 
32-34 παραδοθήσεται Kal... ἀναστήσεται" καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐδὲν τούτων συνῆ- 949 
καν, καὶ ἦν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο κεκρυμμένον ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκον τὰ 
λεγόμενα, xix. 2,3 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ etc., John iv. 47-50; Matt. xxi. 46 
compared with the parallel passages, etc.; see also §151, 31 p. 401. 
A multitude of similar examples may be adduced also from the Apoc- 
alypse. On the other hand, Luke in the Acts is removed the farthest 
from this form of narration; the language of this book in its manner 
of employing participial constructions approximates quite conspicuously 
to the style of the classic Greek writers, and in passages reproduces 
completely the traits of the Greek mode of thought and expression 
(read in particular the speeches put into the mouth of the persons that 
make their appearance, e.g. of Peter in Chaps. ii. and iii., of Paul in 
Chaps. xvii. xxii. xxiv. xxvi., of Tertullus in Chap. xxiv.,in part also of 
Stephen in Chap. vii., or separate historical sections such as iv. 138-24; 
xvi. 18-23, 27; xix. 1-9; xxvii. 30, etc.). The Epistolary writings, 
particularly those of Paul, and still more the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
likewise frequently employ participles, since for the treatment of didac- 
tic and dogmatic material no form of expression was better suited than 
the philosophic, finished, language of the learned Greeks of that day. 
Yet it is not to be denied, that in handling participial constructions 
classic dexterity in many respects fails the authors of these Epistles, 
and that their periods, on account of the very excess of participles, 
relative and other subordinate clauses, parentheses, and changes of 


structure, are often deficient in perspicuity and prepare grave difficul- 
87 


290 I'HE PARTICIPLE. [8 144. 


ties for the interpreter; see, for example, the first chapters of the 
Epp. to the Ephesians and the Colossians. 

2 One mode of resolving a periodic combination of clauses 
into juxtaposed independent clauses has already been spoken 
of (δ 189, 28 p. 226) in connection with hypothetic construc- 
tions. Far more extensive would a collection prove to be of 
those instances from all parts of the N.'T. in which, instead 
of Participles (usual in the classic literary language) standing 
in some kind of temporal or causal relation to the leading 
clause, the finite verb is introduced, to which then the leading 
verb is subjoined by καί. 

Since an enumeration of all the passages of the sort belongs rather 
to a work on Ν. Τὶ, Rhetoric than to a Grammar, it may suffice to 
illustrate the usage in separate characteristic examples: Matt. xviii. 
21 ποσάκις ἁμαρτήσει eis ἐμὲ 6 ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω αὐτῷ; where 
certainly every native Greek would have written 7@... ἁμαρτήσαντι, 
since the first clause stands temporally in a subordinate rela- 
tion to the second ; Luke xxiv. 18 σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ 
οὐκ ἔγνως τὰ γενόμενα ἐν αὐτῇ ; John vii. 4 οὐδεὶς ἐν κρυπτῷ τι ποιεῖ καὶ 
ζητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι, vi. 50 οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ ἄρτος... ., ἵνα τις ἐξ 
αὐτοῦ φάγῃ καὶ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ, iii. 19 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς 
ἐλήλυθεν ... καὶ ἠγάπησαν μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς, Rom. x. 20 
ἀποτολμᾷ καὶ λέγει. Also with an adversative Particle: Rom, vi. 17 
χάρις TO θεῷ, ὅτι ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὑπηκούσατε δέ etc. 

Here belongs, further, the juxtaposition of two Impera- 
tives of such a sort that the emphasis lies only on one of the’ 

250 commands given. This likewise is in accordance with a mode 
of popular speech (cf. the Latin divide et vmpera, i.e. divide if 
thou wilt conquer). 

Thus the frequent ἔρχου καὶ ide (instead of the literary ἐλθὼν ἴδε or 
ἔρχου ἵνα ἴδῃς) John i. 47; Rev. vi. 1, 5, 7, ἐρεύνησον καὶ ide John vii. 
52, still more plainly Eph. iv. 26 (quotn.) ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε 
where it is impossible to understand the first command as direct (cf. 
Mehlh. Schema ἀπὸ κοινοῦ etc. 1833). Further, the combination of an 
Imperative with a following finite verb in the Future; as, ἔρχεσθε 
καὶ ὄψεσθε John i. 40 Tdf. ['Treg.], αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται" Kpovere καὶ 
ἀνοιγήσεται Matt. vii. 7 (Luke xi. 9), ἄρατε καὶ εὑρήσετε Matt. xi. 29, etc. 


B. § 144, 1; C. ef. § 679; D. ef. §§ 420, 421 Obs. 5; J. ef. 88 705, 2.4; 759 Obs. 4; W. 350sq ~ 
(828 sq.). 


3 Participles take the place of subordinate clauses only. 
There are many passages, particularly in Paul’s Epistles, where 


§ 144.] THE PARTICIPLE APPARENTLY INDEPENDENT. 291 


Participles appear to stand independently; and hence it has 
been frequently asserted that in the N. T. even leading 
clauses are formed in Hebrew fashion (see Gesen. Lehrg. 
Ρ. 791; Gr. §131, 2) by means of Participles. Such an as- 
sumption, however, would militate fundamentally with the 
genius of Greek (prose) usage ; (not even the Seventy take 
- this liberty even where they had a Participle before them in 
the Original). The probability of this assertion, therefore, in 
Paul’s case must be disputed at the outset, since even from the 
most Hebraistic books of the N. T. no sure instance of such 
a usage can be brought forward. It would be unreasonable 
likewise to wish to apply to the language of such a writer as 
Paul the isolated precedents extant in classic Greek poets 
and earlier prose authors (which, besides, are all capable of a 
proper explanation). On the contrary, all the examples 
adduced as of this class may be brought substantially under 
some one of the following heads: 

a) The Participle appears to stand independently in incom- 4 
plete citations from the O.T., or those quoted from 
memory. | 

For instance: 1 Cor. iii. 19 6 δρασσόμενος τοὺς σοφοὺς ἐν τῇ πανουρ- 
yia αὐτῶν. Here it is plain even from the Article that the Participle 
can only hold the place of a Subject, and consequently cannot pos- 
sibly itself be predicate (with ἐστίν understood), but a complete predi- 
cate (βουλὴν αὐτῶν ἐξέστησεν according to Job v. 13) is to be supplied, 
provided Paul designed to give a complete thought here where he was 
only concerned with the contents of the given words of the quotation ; 
cf, Heb. i. 7 (after Ps. civ.), Matt. ii. 18 (after Jer. xxxi.15). In this 
way we can explain, too, most simply the Participle διδούς in Heb. viii. 
10 and x. 16, viz. as a quotation according to the Alexandrian text! 251 
from Jer. xxxi. (xxxviii.) 38. For to connect it grammatically with 
διαθήσομαι is so harsh as to seem hardly conceivable, and the connection 
with ἐπιγράψω is prevented by καί 

b) In proverbial phrases. 5 

These, as is well known, appear in all languages often as gram- 
matically incomplete sentences (see e.g. Matt. v. 38), since the supply 
of what is necessary to render the sentence grammatically complete is 


1 In cod. Vat. it is given completely διδοὺς δώσω etc. The quotations in the Ep. 
to the Heb., however, agree almost always with the text of the Alexandrian codex, 
(those in the Pauline Epistles more with the Vatican codex) ; see Bleek, Heb. Vol. 
I. p. 369 sqq. 


292 THE PARTICIPLE. [§ 144. 


made unconsciously and involuntarily by the hearer himself, and in 
all such quotations it is the sense only which is important, not the 
grammatical construction. E.g. 2 Pet. ii. 22 κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ 
ἴδιον ἐξέραμα - ὗς λουσαμένη eis κυλισμὸν βορβόρου. 

6 c) The Participle is to have a finite verb supplied to it 
from the context, as was often the case also in Greek authors 
(see Β. § 151, IV. 5, and compare the chapter on Ellipsis below, 
p. 390) ; and 

d) The Participle stands anacoluthically, the sentence for 
any reason (generally in consequence of parenthetic inser- 
tions) following another construction or even breaking off and 
remaining incomplete (cf. the chapter below on Anacoluthon, 
p. 878). 

To one of these last two heads are almost all Participles apparently 
standing absolutely to be referred, especially in Paul’s writings. But 
as respects the individual cases, especially if both modes of explana- 
tion appear to be grammatically admissible, the opinions of the most 
reputable interpreters are not infrequently divided. As the number 
of passages is very considerable; as, further, an evident struggling 
with expression has often interrupted the grammatical sequence of 
thought and forced it into the background, and the correct understand- 
ing of the several passages for the most part requires a student to 
enter somewhat thoroughly into the context, not only grammatically, 
but also doctrinally, historically, rhetorically: the grammarian must 
restrict himself, at least in this connection, to establishing the existence 
of the two classes of cases described, and to illustrating their nature 
in a few prominent examples.! 

Examples of c) are, Rom. v. 10 sq. εἰ γὰρ ἐχθροὶ ὄντες etc. Here 
not only has καυχώμενοι been taken as a finite verb by many modern 
interpreters, but the variant καυχώμεθα (as an ancient interpretation) 
is extant. Nevertheless the Part. must be regarded as a “ tardily sub- 
joined” adjunct to σωθησόμεθα ; see the comm. of Fritzsche, de Wette, 

252 Meyer. 2 Cor. viii. 19 sq. οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ χειροτονηθεὶς etc., a 
parenthetic clause (left at the same time incomplete) which, since it 
stands out of all construction, is to be completed with the aid of the 
preceding Relative clause as follows: who not only on this account 
(ἐν τῷ evayy. i.e. as a publisher of the gospel), but also as one chosen 
by the churches, is held in respect; the στελλόμενοι following is 
connected again most simply with the leading predicate συνεπέμψαμεν. 


1Qn account of their obvious structural difficulties, such sentences even in 
ancient times were forced to undergo attempts at emendation of all sorts ; see e.g. 
the various readings on Rom. v. 11; 2 Cor. viii. 21; Heb. vii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 11. 


§ 144.] THE PARTICIPLE APPARLNTLY INDEPENDENT. 993 


In the following verse (21), however, if with Tdf. [eds. 2, 7; not 8, 
Treg. cod. Sin. ] we read προνοούμενοι γάρ, we should be obliged again 
to take the participial clause parenthetically and supply with it such 
an idea as, J do this ete. (cf. 8 151, 24 b) c) p.394sq.). Mark xii. 5 
where for ods μὲν δέροντες, ods δὲ ἀποκτέννοντες a predicate like they 
maltreated is to be derived from ἀπέκτειναν (cf. ὃ 151, 23d) p. 392). 
See, besides, Heb. vii. 1-3 (according to the difficult reading [so 
too ἐξ], adopted by Lchm. [Treg.], ὃς συναντήσας etc., what is neces- 
sary to complete it grammatically being given in the second verse), 
1 Pet. ii. 18 (οἱ οἰκέται, ὑποτασσόμενοι etc.), iii. 1 (ai γυναῖκες, ὕποτασ- 
σόμεναι etc.), 7 (οἱ ἄνδρες, συνοικοῦντες etc.) — with all which Parti- 
ciples the appropriate predicates are to be supplied from the context ; 
see the commentaries. Since such Participles absolute often cannot 
be otherwise translated than by finite verbs, too great compliance 
with our usage has led to the taking as leading clauses of yet many 
other Participles, the grammatical coherence of which either with 
preceding or following clauses has been satisfactorily proved by the 
more sharp and discriminating criticism of recent interpreters; see, 
for instance, 2 Cor. v. 12; Rom. xii. 6 (where before ἔχοντες δέ none 
of the larger marks of punctuation is to be placed), xiii. 11 (referring 
to vs. 8), Heb. xii. 15; 2 Pet. ii. 1 (ἀρνούμενοι, ἐπάγοντες ete.), iii. 5 
(where the participial clause begins with ἐξ ὕδατος), ete. 

Examples of d) are, 2 Cor. v. 6 θαρροῦντες καὶ εἰδότες etc. Here 
the Participles are anacoluthic; for after the parenthesis διὰ πίστεως 
γάρ etc. the sentence, attracted by the predicate of the parenthesis 
and resuming the initial θαρροῦντες, takes another turn: θαρροῦμεν δὲ 
ete. In 2 Pet. i. 17 (λαβὼν yap παρὰ θεοῦ etc.) the construction is 
completely broken off with vs. 17; in vs. 18 a different construction 
follows, the subject changing or rather reverting to the preceding one 
(in vs. 16), and the grammatically incomplete thought which began 
with vs. 17 being incorporated as object (ταύτην τὴν φωνήν) into this 
following clause. John xiii. 1 (ἀγαπήσας ... ἠγάπησεν), where the 
sentence, begun with πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς etc., led astray by the intervening 
ἀγαπήσας, suddenly passes over to a conclusion that does not correspond 
to the first participial clause (εἰδώς etc.). In the following verse the 
interrupted sentence is not indeed grammatically completed, but con- 
tinued in the interrupted narrative. In John vi. 22 Rec. the 
participial clause (ἰδὼν [Lchm. Tdf. Treg. εἶδον, cod. Sin. εἶδεν) ὅτι 
etc.) is taken up again in vs. 24 by ὅτε οὖν εἶδεν [cod. Sin. καὶ ἰδόντες 
ὅτι ete. }. Acts xxiv. 5 (εὑρόντες γάρ etc.) where. the discourse, 
instead of giving the leading clause belonging to the Participle, con- 
tinues in the 6th verse in a Relative construction, just as in Rom. xvi. 
25-27; (cf. the doxology in Act. Polycarp. 20, and the similar case 


994 THE PARTICIPLE. [§ 144. 


Acts xxiv. 18 in § 151, 10 p. 3838). Rom. xv. 23 sq. Lchm. [Tdf. 
Treg. δὲ] (νυνὶ δὲ μηκέτι etc.) where the participial clause ἐπιποθίαν 
ἔχων etc., owing to the parenthesis ἐλπίζω yap etc., is left unfinished, 
and the discourse returns ἢ vs. 25 to the original νυνὶ δέ of vs. 23, 
see Lehm. vol. II. pref. p. ix, [and Tdf’s note on vs. 24 in his ed. 
8]; the addition ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς appears to be (an emendation) 
of later origin. To be sure, on this method of explaining them, the 
sentences acquire for the most part a very irregular and anomalous 

258 aspect. Yet compare the great multitude of similar changes in con- 
struction (a liberty of which the N. T. writers, and foremost among 
them Paul, made a very extensive use) with the Participle in 13 
p- 298 below, and in different connections § 151, 12 p. 386, § 123, 5 
p. 78. 

ἃ Remark. The former practice of construing even participial clauses 
which stand in indubitable connection with finite verbs as leading 
clauses, because, strictly taken, they contain not subordinate but rather 
co-ordinate adjuncts of the action expressed by the leading verb, rests 
upon an oversight of the laws of the Greek language; e.g. Jas. ii. 9 
εἰ δὲ προσωπολημπτεῖτε, ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε, ἐλεγχόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου 
ὡς παραβάται; see also Luke iv. 15 (ἐδίδασκεν . . . δοξαζόμενος), Rom. 
iii. 24, etc. Modern exegesis has already shown sufficiently the error 
of such an interpretation. 


Β. § 144, land N. 1; H. § 785; C. $678; D. 8 808b., 492; J. §§ 451. 695; G. ὃ 108. 

9 Participles take the place in particular of Relative 
clauses; in which case the Participle as a rule has the 
Article before it, cf. §125, 8 Remark, p. 93. This is, to be 
sure, a general principle of the Greek language. But since 
the N.T. in employing it manifestly goes farther than the 
ordinary usage, we will here give a view of the cases by classi- 
fying them. The Participle stands in place of a Relative 
clause 


a) After a Substantive likewise rendered definite by the Art.; as, 
Jas. iii. 6 ἡ γλῶσσα καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ἡμῶν, ἡ σπιλοῦσα ὅλον τὸ 
σῶμα etc. Yet the substantive can also stand without an Art. in 
the cases specified § 125, 3 p. 92; proper names, too, as a rule then 
dispense with the article (cf. B. § 124, 3), as 1 Thess. i. 10 Ἰησοῦν, τὸν 
ῥυόμενον ἡμᾶς. 

b) After Personal Pronouns, since they uniformly take the place 
of a definite substantive, as Rom. ix. 20 σὺ τίς εἶ, ὃ ἀνταποκρινόμενος, 
xiv. 4; Jas. iv. 12 σὺ τίς εἶ, ὃ κρίνων (for which in the passage from 
Jas. the Rec. Grsb. etc. have after several MSs. ὃς κρίνεις), Rem. viii. 


8144] THE PARTICIPLE INSTEAD OF A RELATIVE CLAUSE. 995 


4 ἐν ἡμῖν, τοῖς περιπατοῦσιν, Eph. i. 12, 19 ἡμᾶς, τοὺς προηλπικότας, τοὺς 
πιστεύοντας, 1 Cor. viii. 10 σὲ τὸν ἔχοντα ; rarely after the Demons. 
Pron. αὐτός in place of the 3d Pers., John i. 12 ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν... 
τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. 

6) Also when the (lst and 2d) Person is not expressed separately 
but contained in the verbal ending (on which cf. § 129, 13 p. 132), as 
Heb. iv. ὃ εἰσερχόμεθα εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν, οἱ πιστεύσαντες, Vi. 18 ἵνα 
παράκλησιν ἔχωμεν, οἱ καταφυγόντες, 1 John v. 18 ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, of 
πιστεύοντες. 

d) In appositional adjuncts to the Vocative, for the same reason. 
See the examples of this in ὃ 129 a, 6 p. 141. 

e) When the Participle takes the place of a Substantive, and 
accordingly stands alone without referring to an object expressly 
mentioned. Here the insertion of the article is required, inasmuch as 
in general, according to B. ὃ 124, 1, the genus is designated (he 
who, such a one as); if, however, the Participle expresses indefinite 
individuals, or those for any reason not more closely designated, 
either ris, τινὲς is wont to stand with it, or it is used alone without 254 
an article. 

Examples of this very common usage are, Rom. iii. 11 Tdf. οὐκ 
ἔστιν ὃ συνιῶν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὃ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν as it were, this class of men 
is not to be found among them; but in vs. 12 οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν | Tdf. 6 
with x] (sc. tis) χρηστότητα, Matt. xxv. 29 τῷ ἔχοντι παντὶ δοθήσεται " 
τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἔχοντος, καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, 2 Cor. xi. 4 εἰ ὃ ἐρχόμενος 
ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν κηρύσσει. Without the article, Mark i. 8 φωνὴ βοῶν- 
Tos ἐν TH ἐρήμῳ, Rev. ii. 14 ἔχεις ἐκεῖ κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν Βαλαάμ, 
Rom. iii. 12; Matt. χχῖν. 88. With ris, particularly in the periphrasis 
for a finite verb by means of the Participle with εἶναι (see 24 sqq. 
pp. 908 sq.), as Mark xiv. 4 ἦσάν τινες ἀγανακτοῦντες etc. 

f) Thus far the insertion of the article in the above cases is perfectly 
regular. But the N. T. departs somewhat from ordinary usage 
(although a few scattered examples are found in Greek authors also, 
see Bhdy. p. 8:8; Winer 110 (104)) in this respect, that even when 
the indefinite and general pronominal words (such as τὶς, ἄλλος, ἕτερος, 
πολλοί) are expressly inserted, the Participle can retain the article; 
as, Gal. i. 7 τινές εἰσιν of ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς, Col. ii. 8 μή τις ἔσται ὃ 
συλαγωγῶν (cf. Ignat. ad Eph. 8 μηδεμία ἔρις ἡ δυναμένη), Luke xviii. 9 
εἶπεν πρός τινας τοὺς πεποιθότας, see besides Jude 4 in § 125, 3 Rem. 

1 Even if the object which the writer has in mind in using the Participle is 
subsequently mentioned, the Participle must nevertheless first of all be so con- 
strued: for example, John ν. 45 ἔστεν ὃ κατηγορῶν ὑμῶν, Μωῦσῆς not, Moses is he 
who accuses you, but, there is one who accuses you, Moses. Cf. with this the case 


where the Participle with the Art. takes the place of a Predicate, in § 129, 1, b) 
p. 124, 


10 


{ 


296 THE PARTICIPLE. [8 144. 


Ρ. 93; Acts iv. 12 οὐδὲ yap ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον, τὸ δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις, 
John xii. 12 ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, Mark xv. 41 ἄλλαι 
πολλαὶ ai ἀναβᾶσαι, 2 John 7 πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθαν . .. οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦν- 
τες. To these add the other examples in ὃ 125, 3 Rem. p. 93. in 
which the participle with the article is subjoined to an indefinite 
substantive or one standing in a predicative relation. In all these 
cases the article intimates that the Participle is an Adjectival 
adjunct (and consequently takes the place of a Relative clause), not 
a limitation pertaining to the verb (and so to be resolved by a Con- 
junction). Nevertheless the Greeks, however, would even then have 
preferred the Participle without the article, or a complete Relative 
clause. 

Remark. On the practice of the Apocalypse to subjoin without 
alteration the Participle in the Nominative (as an apposition) to 
other Cases, see § 123, 5 p. 78. 


B. § 144, 8; H. § 789d.; C. $608b.; D. p.599; J. § 811, 8; G. δὲ 108, N.1; 109, 5. 

The Future Participle (which, moreover, in the N. T. 
has become a rarity, e.g. with the Article, τὸ ἐσόμενον Luke 
xxii. 49, ὁ παραδώσων John vi. 64, τὸ γενησόμενον 1 Cor. xv. 
37, τὰ λαληθησόμενα Heb. iii. 5) is found as a substitute for a 
final clause only in the Acts: viii. 27; xxiv. 11 (ἦλθεν etc.) προσ- 
κυνήσων, Xxiv. 17 ποιήσων, xxv. 13 ἀσπασόμενοι ; and with ὡς 
(to express the purpose as it exists in the mind of the subject, 
B. §144,N. 14; Η. §795e.; OC. 8680; J. 8101; 6. 8109, N. 
4) in the Ep. to the Heb. xiii. 17 ἀγρυπνοῦσι» ... ὡς λόγον 
ἀποδώσοντες. 


955 Elsewhere to express the purpose the Infinitive is employed, or 


il 


Conjunctions, even in passages where the use of the Participle would 
have been more convenient (see the examples in ὃ 139, 47 p. 241 and 
cf. § 140, 4, 10, 18, 17),—- or the Present Participle is used according 
to the following paragraph. 


Β. 8144, N. 4; H. § 789 Rem. g.; J. cf. § 897. 

The Present Participle, besides its ordinary use to ex- 
press a continuing action and simultaneousness, expresses in 
the N. T. the following relations also : 


1) In connection with the article it is often used without any 
temporal reference, merely to present the idea of the verb either in the 
form of asubstantive or an adjective, in the same way that the 
Pres. Infinitive (yet in this case interchangeably with the Aorist) 
often serves to designate the verb’s idea as such. For example, 


§ 144.] . THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE. 297 


Eph. iv. 28 ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω, Matt. xxvii. 40 6 καταλύων τὸν 
ναὸν Kal... οἰκοδομῶν, σῶσον σεαυτόν, Rey. xx. 10 ὃ διάβολος 6 πλανῶν 
αὐτούς, 1 Thess. i. 10 Ἰησοῦν, τὸν ῥυόμενον ἡμᾶς etc. Hence in John 
(vi. 88, 41, 50, 51) there is a difference between ὃ ἄρτος 6 καταβαίνων 
(a conception) and ὁ ἄρτος 6 καταβάς (with a temporal reference), see 
Liicke. 

2) Like the Indicative it often includes in itself the Future force, 
and hence is used, especially in connection with ws, even to express 
the end or object; see on both points ὃ 137, 10,11 pp. 203 sqq. 
and 144, 22 p. 807. 

3) Like the Indicative (§ 137, 10 9) p. 205) it is used also of the 
intention (de conatu): Matt. xxiii. 13 ὑμεῖς τοὺς εἰσερχομένους οὐκ 
ἀφίετε εἰσελθεῖν, Acts xxviii. 23 Παῦλος ἐξετίθετο... πείθων αὐτοὺς περὶ 
τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (whereupon subsequently, οἱ μὲν ἐπείθοντο, οἱ δὲ ἡ πίστου ν). 
So in the evangelic narrative Judas before executing the betrayal is 
almost always called 6 παραδιδούς, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 25 (in Lat. versions 
qui traditurus erat), 46,48; Mark xiv. 42, 44; John xviii. 2, 5 ete. ; 
but in reference to the betrayal as accomplished ὃ παραδούς, Matt. x. 4; 

xxvii. 3 Lchm. [Treg. ]. 


B. §144,4; J. §706; W. § 45, 8. 

In sentences which contain two or more Participial clauses, 
whether in immediate succession or separated by a finite verb, 
we find in general (even in those writers that rather rarely 
employ the Participial construction) the rule observed, that 
only co-ordinated Participles are connected by καί or τέ; 
as, Matt. iv. 23; xxvii. 48; xxviii. 12, etc. Otherwise, par- 
ticularly if the narrative advances from one fact to another by 
means of them, the Participles are placed side by side without 
any connective. 

Of this genuine classic usage a great many examples are still found: 
particularly in the Acts, as xxii. 26 ἀκούσας ὁ ἑκατοντάρχης προσελθὼν 
ἀπήγγειλεν λίγων, Xvi. 27 ἰδὼν τὰς θύρας ἀνεῳγμένας, σπασάμενος μάχαιραν 
ἤμελλεν ἑαυτὸν ἀναιρεῖν, νομίζων etc., xxiv. 5, perhaps also xiii. 27 (if 
with Lehm., vol. II. Pref. p. viii, we expunge the καὶ before τὰς φωνάς, 
since the passage in its extant form can hardly be defended gram- 
matically); but also in the Gospels, as Matt. iv. 13 καταλιπὼν τὴν 
Ναζαρὲθ ἐλθὼν κατῷκησεν etc., 24 (προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ etc.), xxvi. 44 
(ἀφεὶς ... λέγων), Mark v.15 θεωροῦσιν τὸν δαιμονιζόμενον καθήμενον 
ἱματισμένον καὶ σωφρονοῦντα, 20 5ᾳ. (πολλὰ παθοῦσα καὶ δαπανήσασα ... 
ἀκοῦσασα .. . ἐλθοῦσα), iii. 5; Luke vii. 87, εἰς. ; and in the Epistles, 
as 1 Cor. xi. 4; 2 Tim. i. 4; 2 Pet. ii. 1, etc Sometimes the mss. 


vary, since there are cases enough where in point of fact both inter- 
88 


256 


13 


998 THE PARTICIPLE. [8 144 


pretations are admissible; see, for example, Matt. ii. 1sq. (chm. 
omits καὶ, Tdf. [ed.7] gives it [ed. 8 omits it, το cod. Sin.]), xxviii. 2, 
and elsewhere. 


B. $144, N. 5; C. δὲ 504b.; 659; J. §§ 707 Ξαᾳ. 

The cases where Participles share in the so-called constructio 
ad synesin or sensum with respect to Gender and Number 
are already to be found in the exposition of this construction 
given ὃ 129, 8 p. 129sq. It remains here to make mention 
of the instances where this construction occurs in reference to 
Case. These are all either anacoluthic, ie. have arisen 
in consequence of a mental change of construction (cf. 7 above, - 
p. 293), or to be explained by the fact that the Participle 
refers, not to the grammatical, but to the logical Subject 
of the leading clause. We will arrange the examples according 
to the Cases; yet it is to be noticed that here only those 
instances are considered where the Participle stands in the 
Nominative instead of another Case. For the instances of 
the Genitive and Accusative belong under the head of absolute 
cases, consequently to § 145, 6 p. 317. 

The Participle, then, (without the Article, cf. § 123, 5 
p. 78) is found in the Nominative 


a) Where the precise grammatical connection requires the Gen- 
itive; these are pure instances of the second class, the Participle 
being referred to the logical, instead of the grammatical, subject of the 
preceding or following leading clause: Jude 16 τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν 
λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα, θαυμάζοντες (equiv. to λαλοῦσιν etc.), Acts xix. 34 
ἐπιγνόντες δὲ... φωνὴ ἐγένετο μία ἐκ πάντων (equiv. to πάντες ἔκραξαν). 
Further, see Col. ii. 2 (αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν, συμβιβασθέντες), 2 Cor. vii. 5 
(σάρξ ἡμῶν ... θλιβόμενοι), ix. 11 and 13 (πλουτιζόμενοι ... δοξάζοντες, 
making reference to vss. 10 and 12); perhaps also Rev. v. 12 since 
λέγοντες Owing to the Gender can strictly speaking refer only to αὐτῶν 
(yet according to § 129, 8 b) p. 130 another mode of explanation is 
also admissible, which gives the same sense), 2 Cor. i. 7 (see Meyer). 
From the O. T. belongs under this head the frequently occurring 
ῥῆμα κυρίου ... λέγων, as in Gen. xy. 1; 1 Kings xvii. 8 (AL text) ; 
1 Sam. xv. 10; 2 Sam. vii. 4, etc. 

b) Instead of the Dative, the construction taking a different turn, 
as Acts xx. 3 ποιήσας μῆνας τρεῖς... ἐγένετο γνώμη τοῦ ὑποστρέφειν 
(see ὃ 140, 13 p. 208) ; or the Participle refers to the logical Subject 
of the leading clause, as Col. iii. 16 6 λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν 
ipiv ... διδάσκοντες etc. (where we are not with Lchm. to assume a 


§ 144.] THE PARTICIPLE IN THE NOMINATIVE. 999 


parenthesis), Acts xv. 22 sq. ἔδοξεν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ... γράψαντες. On 
the other hand, in Eph. iii. 18 the Participles may (with Lchm.) be 
suitably referred to the grammatical subject in ἐξισχύσητε (see ὃ 151, 
18 p. 389), and likewise in Phil. i. 80 ἔχοντες together with πτυρόμενοι 
etc. to στήκετε. The first hand reading of cod. Vat., ἔχον, can hardly 
be founded in a mistake of the copyist, but looks like an emendation 
occasioned by the extremely great hyperbaton. 

c) Instead of the Accusative: — in every instance in consequence 
of a change of construction, as Mark ix. 20 ἰδὼν αὐτὸν, τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς 
ἐσπάραξεν αὐτόν, where the sentence, instead of continuing in the 
Passive, suddenly takes an Active turn, and hence the subject changes 
(cf. the similar examples in ὃ 151, 10 p. 383); most naturally after an 
antecedent Acc. and Infin., since this construction easily and naturally . 
changes in the mind, re αρτρο τὰ after parenthetic clauses, into a direct 257 
statement, as Eph. iv. 2 παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς περιπατῆσαι (equiv. to περιπατή- 
care), ἀνεχόμενοι etc., 2 Pet. iii. 3 (μνησθῆναι ... γινώσκοντες) and prob- 
ably also 1 Pet. ii. 11, where, however, several mss. even (see Tdf.’s 
crit. note) exhibit the alteration ἀπέχεσθε. 

Remark. The examples from the Revelation where the Participle 
stands in the Nominative (with or without the Article) and the con- 
struction requires a different Case, have not been included here, 
because they in part may be referred to the observation in ὃ 123, 5 p. 
78, in part are a consequence of the connection of clauses peculiar to 
that book, and spoken of 8 151, 12 p. 386. 


B. § 144, 5 and'N. 6; H. cf. §§ 788. 801; ©. § 677e.f.; Ὁ. § 578; J. 8.698; G. ὃ 112, 2. 

The familiar Greek idiom, according to which what with us 14 
is a subordinate circumstance is expressed in Greek 
by the finite verb and the leading idea by a Participle 
dependent on that verb, has in the N. T. in the case of λαν- 
θάνειν and its associated verbs almost completely disappeared, 
only a few instances of it being adducible (almost exclusively 
from Luke and the Ep. to the Hebrews): Heb. xiii. 2 ἔλαθόν 
τινες ξενίσαντες, Luke xxiii. 12 mpotmnpyov ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες, 
Acts viii. 10 ὑπῆρχον βεβαπτισμένοι, xix. 86 κατεσταλμένοι (cf. 
18 p. 804), Matt. xvii. 25 προέφθασεν αὐτὸν λέγων. 

What elsewhere admits, with more or less plausibility, of being com- 
prised under this head (which, however, owes its establishment to 
our modern linguistic sense) restricts itself to the following: The 
idea again (πάλιν) is sometimes given by Luke, after Hebrew prece- 
dent (see Gesen. Lex. sub 90", and Lehrgb. 824; Gr. ὃ 139, 2 and 
3a.) or the Sept. (Gen. iv. 2; Ex. x. 28; xiv. 18 etc.), by tpooré- 


300 THE PARTICIPLE. [8 144. 


θεσθαι but with an Infinitive following (cf. Ep. Clem. 1, 12),as Luke 
xx. 11,12 προσέθετο ἕτερον πέμψαι δοῦλον (on the other hand in the 
parallel, passage Mark xii. 4 πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν ; so the Seventy some- 
times render 96% by πάλιν, as Gen. viii. 10), Acts xii. 3 προσέθετο 

᾿ συλλαβεῖν τὸν Πέτρον ; and vice versa (cf. the Homeric dAro λαθών), as 
προσθεὶς εἶπεν παραβολήν Luke xix. 11. The idea continuing, per- 
sisting, Luke expresses by ἐπιμένω with the Participle (cf. John 
viii. 7), Acts xii. 16 ἐπέμενεν κρούων, or οὐ διαλείπω, Luke vii. 45, 
after the analogy of παύεσθαι (15 below). The expression ἐτέλεσεν 
διατάσσων (Matt. xi. 1) also may be fitly translated by the adverb 
adequately, sufficiently. On θέλειν followed by the Infin. see ὃ 15 8 
Ρ. 375; οὗ also 8 above, p. 294. 


B. § 144, 6; H. $§ 796sq.; C. $677; D. §§ 591. 592; J. 85 68lsaq.; 6. § 113, 

On the other hand, the rule according to which certain 
verbal ideas, particularly those of internal and external per- 
ception, of learning, of ceasing, take after them their com- 
plementary clauses (which we as a rule express by the 
Infin. with éo or a clause with that) in the form of a Parti- 
ciple, is pretty accurately observed by the N.T. writers; only 
that in cases where both constructions, the Participle and the 
Infinitive, are admissible (e.g. with ἀκούειν, eidévar), they give 
the preference to the latter, but still more frequently introduce 
the complementary verbal idea as a subordinate clause, with a 
conjunction (ὅτι). 

258 The instances that occur, arranged according to Cases, are 
the following : 

a) The Participle in the No minative. 

Thus with παύεσθαι Luke v. 4, frequently in the Acts, the Ep. to 
the Heb., and by Paul, see Wahl; with φαίνεσθαι Matt. vi. 16, 18 
(but not Rom. vii. 13) ; with ὑπάρχειν (only by Luke and in the Epp., 
cf. 14 p. 299 and 18 p. 304); with καλῶς ποιεῖν and εὖ πράττειν 
Acts x. 83; Phil. iv. 14; 2 Pet. i. 19; 3 John 6; Acts xv.29. Fur- 
ther, οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασφημοῦντες 2 Pet. ii. 10 (after the model of 
αἰσχύνεσθαι), μὴ ἐγκακῶμεν τὸ καλὸν ποιοῦντες (like παύεσθαι) Gal. vi. 9; 
2 Thess. iii. 13. On the other hand, with verbs of emotion, as 
ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι (Acts xvi. 84), χαίρειν (John xx. 20; Phil. ii. 28), Parti- 
ciples stand in the ordinary participial relation, containing as they do 
the reason of the emotion. With εὐχαριστεῖν the statement which 
gives the reason or the contents of the thankfulness is almost always 
introduced with ὅτι ; hence in 1 Cor. xiv. 18 the former reading λαλῶν 
(which arose from the omission of the connective) has now been 


oe 


5144] THE PARTICIPLE AS A COMPLEMENTARY CLAUSE. 301 


changed with reason into the λαλῶ of the mss. [δὲ also]. On 1Tim. 
v. 13, see 17 p. 303.1 


b) The Participle in the Accusative, or construction of the 
Acc. with the Participle ; this occurs most frequently with 
verbs of internal and external perception and of learning. 


Thus with ἀκούειν (see under c)), ὁρᾷν Mark i. 10; Acts viii. 23; 
Heb. ii. 8 etc., βλέπειν Matt. xv. 31, Mark, Luke, Acts, etc., θεωρεῖν 
John vi. 19; x. 12, Acts, etc., γινώσκειν Mark v. 30, Luke, Acts, Heb., 
but most frequently with ὅτι,2 ἐπίστασθαι Acts xxiv. 10 (xxvi. 3 var., on 
which see ὃ 145, 6 p. 317), εὑρίσκειν very often, Matt. xx. 6; Rev. iii. 
2, etc., hence with the Pass. the Particip. is in the Nom. as Matt. i. 
18; Phil. iii. 9 etc. (cf. 18 p. 304), ὁμόλογεϊν 1 John iv. 2; 2 John 7. 
For the references in all these cases see the Lexicons. Other verbs 
which are frequently so construed in Greek authors, — e.g. besides 
εἰδέναι (see note”), χαίρειν (see a)), the verba narrandi such as ἀν-, 
ἀπ-, καταγγέλλειν, λαλεῖν (with the exception of Acts xxvi. 22, see 20 
below, p. 806), ---- are joined almost exclusively to ὅτι, more rarely to 
the Acc. with the Infin. 


9) The Participle in the Genitive, only with ἀκούειν. It 
is necessary to bring together here into a single summary the 
diversified verbal constructions of this verb, just as in ὃ 182, 
17 p. 165 sq. we exhibited its construction with nouns. 


Since according to p. 166 the Genitive with ἀκούειν designates the 
person whose speech or sound is immediately perceived (instead of 
which, however, an abstract substantive indicating a sound often appears 
by metonymy), 

a) It can only be connected with the Genitive and Participle 
where an immediate hearing or perception occurs; and the Participle 
too must in every instance be the Present, owing to the simulta- 
neousness of the two actions of speaking (or sounding) and hearing. 
Examples are very numerous: with persons, Mark xii. 28; xiv. 58; 
Acts ii. 6, 11; vi. 11, 14; viii. 30 etc., Rev. vi. 3,5; viii. 13 etc., and 
with φωνῆς (instead of the person himself) Acts xi. 7; xxii. 7; Rev. 
xiv. 13; xvi. l. 

On the other hand, the Accusative with ἀκούειν designates simply 


1 On the pre-eminently Alexandrian use of εὑρίσκεσθαι with a Participle for εἶναι, 
with a Participle, which increased more and more as time went on, see Dind. in 


Stephanus’s Thesaurus sub voce, p. 2418. 
2 Its synonym εἰδέναι is never found with the Participle (yet cf. 18 p. 804), 


but always either with the Infin. (Luke iv. 41; 1 Pet. v. 9), or with ὅτι, or withan. 
indirect question. In the last two cases the subject of the dependent clause often, 


lingers as an object with the leading verb (according to § 151, 1 p. 377): οἶδά ce 
-ls εἶ, ἔγνων σε ὅτι εἶ, accordingly as if an incipient Participial or Infinitive clause. 


16 


259 


302 THE PARTICIPLE. [8 144 


the object of the perception. In construction with nouns alone, 
therefore, strictly speaking only a thing i.e. an abstract, such as λόγον, 
φωνήν, can be joined to ἀκούειν in the Accusative, see ὃ 132, 17 and 
the note, p. 166. But if the object of the perception is expanded 
into an entire clause, ἀκούειν acquires primarily the signification of 
mediate hearing, or internal perception (learning). Inasmuch as, 
further, the subject of this dependent clause (which morecver may be 
any term whatever, person or thing) is attracted to ἀκούειν as object, 
its predicate (if the clause is not dependent on a conjunction) passes 
over either 

8) into the Infinitive: Acc. and Infin.; or 

260 γ) into the Participle: Acc. and Particip. 

The difference between these two constructions is the general one 
(cf. B. p. 402 Note) viz. that the Infin. presents the idea of the verb 
indefinitely, while the Participle exhibits an action or state in a clear 
and definite relation to another ;— the Infin. names the action gen- 
erally, the Particip. describes it. Still it hardly allows itself to be 
reproduced by us in the translation, since we in both cases must em- 
ploy a resolved construction with the conjunction that. The construc- 


1 It makes no difficulty that a Present Participle can be added as an appo- 
sition to such an object-Accusative, as to any other substantive, without forming 
the construction of the Acc. with the Particip. which follows under -y) below, in- 
asmuch as ἀκούειν retains its proper signification of to hear (not the secondary one 
of to learn, be informed). Several instances of this are actually extant: Acts ix. 
4; xxvi. 14 (cf. Rev. v. 13) ἤκουσεν φωνὴν λέγουσαν etc. This is in sense hardly 
to be distingnished from ἤκουσεν φωνῆς λεγούσης (so, too, without a Part. ἀκούειν 
λόγους and λόγων, see p. 166), but yet taken closely is to be translated he heard a 
voice which said etc. Here comes into consideration a passage from Mark (v. 36, 
“locus perdifficilis,” ΤᾺ): 6 δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀκούσας (Tdf. | Treg. cod. Sin.] παρακούσαΞ) 
τὸν λόγον λαλόυμενον λέγει etc. This sentence, too, owing to the signification 
(to hear) cannot be brought under the following construction (γ) of the Acc. with 
the Participle. But according to the analogy of the examples just mentioned 
there would result the rather incongruous sense, as he heard the word which or as it 
was spoken,—-a pleonasm hardly conceivable. For while in the other examples 
the addition λέγουσαν was necessary, owing to the direct discourse which followed 
and was immediately connected with it, in this case every occasion of the sort 
quite disappears. Less surprising and more natural would it be to take the Par- 
ticiple as a simple attributive adjunct to λόγον (just as we say, the spoken word). 
But then N.T. usage (which here can hardly be convicted of the slightest anomaly, 
see § 125, 1 p. 90) would demand the adjectival position, therefore either τὸν 
λόγον τὸν AaA. ΟΥ̓ τὸν Aad. λόγον. The corruption of the passage is certainly very 
ancient, as the variants shew. But it is very significant that the Vatican codex 
actually exhibits the attributive position mentioned (τὸν Ady. τὸν AaA.), and no. 
less important that cod. D and many (Old Lat.) versions wholly omit the com- 
pletely superfluous addition λαλούμενον, but have instead simply τὸν λόγον or τού- 
tov τὸν λόγον. The original reading, as I think, has been preserved either in these 
last or in the position of the words in cod. Vat. 


§ 144.] THE PARTICIPLE WITH ἀκούειν. 303 


tion of the Acc. and Infinitive occurs only in John xii. 18 ἤκουσαν 
τοῦτο αὐτὸν πεποιηκέναι, 1 Cor. xi. 18 ἀκούω σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν ; 
that of the Acc. and Participle is somewhat more frequent: Luke iv. 
23 ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς Kad., Acts vii. 12 ἀκούσας ὄντα σιτία εἰς 
Αἴγ., 2 Thess. iii. 11; 3 John 4. The difference between these pas- 
sages and those with the Acc. and Participle in the preceding note is 
obvious: in those ἀκούειν still has the signification to hear, here the 
mediate sense to learn ; in those only the Present Part. was used, after 
the style of the examples under a) ; in these any Participle whatever 
may be subjoined to the Acc., since the clauses are no longer contem- 
poraneous. 

δ) Instead of the two preceding constructions the verbal forms are 
most commonly resolved into a clause with ὅτι; of this examples 
are found everywhere, Matt. iv. 12 etc. Finally, 

e) As after every verbum sentiendi, an indirect question takes 
the place of the objective clause: Matt. xxi. 16. ἀκούεις τί οὗτοι 
λέγουσιν; 

That in the last two cases the subject of the subordinate clause can 
stand as the object of ἀκούειν follows from ὃ 151, 1 p. 376. 

Remark. Only in a single passage does the Participle (after μαν- 
θάνειν) appear to be used in a way opposed to the genius of the language 
viz. 1 Tim. v. 13 ἅμα δὲ καὶ dpyai μανθάνουσιν περιερχόμεναι τὰς οἰκίας 
etc. According to the general rule, μανθάνω ὥν can only mean J per- 
ceive, notice, that Iam; on the other hand, the signification [learn 
to be belongs exclusively to the construction with the Infinitive, and 
indeed occurs just before (vs. 4): μανθανέτωσαν εὐσεβεῖν kai... ἀποδι- 
ddvat. Now although the Infin. as a more general verbal form can take 
the place of the Participle (cf. B. p. 402 (465) note), yet the reverse 
is never the case. Nevertheless this Participle has been taken in 
this sense by the majority of translators (Vulg., Luther, de Wette) : 
they learn to go about etc. To avoid this grammatical error other 
methods of interpretation have been proposed by the interpreters. 
Sometimes μανθάνειν has been taken in the sense of to be accustomed, 
in the habit of ; this meaning, however, μανθάνειν never has, at least in 
the Present, and even in the Preterite it would require in this sense 
the Infinitive, since a Greek could have had no other idea before his 
mind than to have learned. At other times ἀργαί has been rep- 
resented as the word immediately dependent on μανθάνουσιν, so that 
by supplying the copula (εἶναι) it would mean, they learn to be idle ete. 
(Winer, Meyer [1.6. Huther]). Against this supposition, however, 
there are — apart from the sense — most weighty objections, viz. 1) 
the position, according to which dpyai must imperatively be taken as 
an attribute of the subject; 2) the ellipsis of the Infin. εἶναι, since 


804 THE PARTICIPLE. [§ 144 


according to both general and N. T. usage (see 16 below) we are war: 
ranted in supplying only the Participle οὖσαι, and the possibility of 
taking the passage in the way described is afforded only by the addi- 
tion of the Infin. εἶναι; 3) usage. For what is adduced from other 
writers as a warrant for it, proves on closer examination to be insuf- 
ficient. The reference to Plato, Euthyd. p. 276 (οἱ ἀμαθεῖς dpa σοφοὶ 
μανθάνουσι) is not in place, since there the (perfectly senseless) addi- 


261 tion σοφοί has been discarded on ms. authority, and the passage from 


18 


19 


Dio Chrys. (or. 55 p. 558 Σωκράτης. μὲν παῖς dv ἐμάνθανε λιθοξόος τὴν 
Tov πατρὸς τέχνη ν) is of quite another sort. Considering the textual 
certainty of the Participle in the above passage, and the employment 
— elsewhere so absolutely correct — of the Participle on the part of 
the N. T. writers, there is hardly any other choice left us than, accord- 
ing to Bengel’s proposal, to assume here that the mode of expres- 
sion is anacoluthic, so as to give rise to the meaning “discunt quae 
oveundo domos discuntur.” What they περιερχόμεναι τὰς οἰκίας learn 
is sufficiently indicated, not grammatically indeed, but as respects the 
sense, by the following epithets dpyai, φλυαροί, περίεργοι, λαλοῦσαι τὰ 
μὴ ὄντα ; and the specific thought Bengel supplies (statum familiarum 
curiose explorant), which perhaps as too gratuitous and far-fetched has 
damaged his interpretation somewhat, is not needed. 


B. § 144, N.7; C. §6774.; J. § 682,8; 6. § 118, Ν. δ. 

The omission of the Participle od», ὄντα ete. in these 
complementary clauses is usual in the N. T. also, in fact rather 
more common than its insertion. Cf. 22 p. 308. 


Thus with διατελεῖν, Acts xxvii. 33 ἄσιτοι διατελεῖτε; with φαί- 
νεσθαι, Matt. xxiii. 27, 28 φαίνονται ὡραῖοι, δίκαιοι, 2 Cor. xiii. 7; 
Rom. vii. 13; with οἶδα, Mark vi. 20 εἰδὼς αὐτὸν ἄνδρα ἅγιον ; with 
ἀφεῖναι (to leave) Luke x. 30 Lehm. [Treg. Tdf.] ἀφέντες ἡμιθανῆ ; 
and very often with εὑρίσκειν, Luke ix.36; xxiii. 4,22; Acts v.10 ete., 
1 Cor. iv. 2; Gal. ii. 17 ete., 2 Pet. iii. 14; Rev. ii. 2; v. 4 etc. (quite 
elliptical are Mark xiv. 16; 2 Cor. xi. 12). The omission is most 
natural with ὑπάρχειν, since this word as a synonym of εἶναι already 
includes in itself ὦν: Luke viii. 41; ix. 48; Acts ii. 30; xxi. 20 ete. 
See Wahl. | 

Β. § 144, N. 10; J. § 488 Obs. 

The phrase 6 καλούμενος, frequently employed in the writings of 
Luke (and a few times in the Rev. also), uniformly takes its proper 
position (Ptcp. between the Art. and Subst.) : τῇ καλουμένῃ στείρᾳ (Lk. 
i. 86), Σίμωνα τὸν Kar. ζηλωτήν (vi. 15), etc. (In Greek writers the 
appellation also intervenes between the Art. and the Participle; as, 
τῶν δήμων καλουμένων, τοὺς Ρείτους καλουμένους, Thuc, Xen.). On the 


§ 144.] THE PARTICIPLE IN ATTRACTION. 305 


way in which the other N. T. authors express themselves, see § 129, 6 
p. 128. 
B. § 144,N.12; C. 8 657 d.; J. § 682, 674 sq. 

The Participle also (in Greek authors frequently, in the N.T. 20 
rarely) suffers attraction. Three classes of cases occur, 
which rest, however, essentially on the same principle : 

a) The clause with the Participle is already, as a Relative 
vlause, attracted ; cf. pp. 285 sqq. Then the Participle, which as 
respects its form belongs to the Relative (and which consequently 
had there been no attraction would have stood, like the Relative, 
in the Acc.),is changed with it into the same case. 

This case occurs in Acts xxvi. 22 οὐδὲν ἐκτὸς λέγων ὧν τε of προφῆται 
ἐλάλησαν μελλόντων γίνεσθαι, arising from οὐδὲν τούτων ἃ... ἐλάλη- 
σαν μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι ---- (a genuine classic example). Cf. 8128, 3 
p. 77. 

b) The Participle dependent on an Infin., if as a closer 
limitation of the same it ought, according to the general rule 
(B. § 141, 1), to have stood in the Accusative, is attracted 
by a noun which stands in the leading clause (and which at 262 
the same time is the subject of the Participle), and assumes the 
case of this noun. 


This case is a legitimate extension of the familiar construction 
ἔξεστί μοι εἶναι εὐδαίμονι (B. § 142, 2). What the predicate adjective 
εὐδαίμονι undergoes here takes place also with entire participial clauses ; 
and as in this example both constructions are admissible (εὐδαίμονι and 
-μονα), 80 also in the N.T. And in fact the remark made above (cf. 
§ 142, 1 p. 278) that the N. T. likes to employ the regular and more 
simple construction with the Acc., while classic usage prefers the other 
case (as a rule the Dative}, holds good here also. An evident in- 
stance of attraction is given in 2 Pet. ii. 21 κρεῖσσον ἦν αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐπε * 
γνωκέναι... ἢ ἐπιγνοῦσιν ἐπιστρέψαι etc. (for which ἐπιγνόντας also 
might have stood): Further, in the Acts (the style of which harmo- 
1izes most with this idiom) xv. 25 Lchm. [Treg.] ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν... ἐκλεξα- 
κένοις πέμψαι etc. (where Tdf. [so cod. Sin.] has preferred the other, 
just as good Greek, reading ἐκλεξαμένους, which is given in vs. 22 
without var.), xxvii. ὃ Lehm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] ἐπέτρεψεν (sc. 
wWr@) ... πορευθέντι τυχεῖν etc. (where Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] reads with the 
najority of more recent MSS. πορευθέντα), xvi. 21 ἔθη ἃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἡμῖν 
ταραδέχεσθαι οὐδὲ ποιεῖν Ρωμαίοις οὖσιν ; see also the example from 
cxii. 17 in ὃ 14, 2 p. 315. Elsewhere the Accusative is always 
1566 : and that not only where the Dative in the leading clause is 


emitted (1 Pet. iv. 8), or where the Participle stands after the Infin, 
89 


806 THE PARTICIPLE. [§$ 144. 


(Acts xi. 12 Lchm. [ Treg. Tdf.], xxvi. 20, cf. Matt. xviii. 8), but also 
where the Participle precedes, in which case the Greeks, owing to the 
proximity of the Participle to the noun in the leading clause, would 
certainly have preferred attraction ; as, Luke i. 73 sq. rod δοῦναι ἡμῖν 
εὐ ῥυσθέντας λατρεύειν, Acts xxv. 27 ἄλογον γάρ μοι δοκεῖ πέμ.- 
TovTa... onuavat,and especially Heb. ii. 10 ἔπρεπεν αὐτῷ (sc. θεῷ); 
πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν .. . τελειῶσαι. The 
reader, therefore, here must not allow himself to be misled by the 
ordinary classic usage and refer ἀγαγόντα, owing to the identity of 
case, to the following ἀρχηγόν (instead of to God, αὐτῷ). 


c) The Participle, although in signification belonging to the 
leading clause, is attracted by a different and nearer case 
(with which of course it must have the same subject) in a 
subordinate clause. 


This case occurs in Rev. xvii. 8 (θαυμασθήσονται οἱ κατοικοῦντες ὧν 
... βλεπόντων etc.) where βλέποντες is manifestly a correction. Cf. 
§ 145, 1 sq. p. 814 and the use in B. § 141, N. 3. 


B. § 144, 8 and N. 13; J. § 696, Obs. 5; G. p. 218 sq. 
#1 Particles are employed in connection with Participles. 
Thus in particular, after an antecedent participial clause,odT@s 
serves to resume the same in the leading clause; as, Acts xx. 


11 ἀναβὰς δὲ καὶ κλάσας ... οὕτως ἐξῆλθεν, xxvii. 17; cf. John 
iv. 6. Of. §149, 1 p. 857. 


Of ἔπειτα in the same sense there is but a single example (and that 
rejected by the modern editors): Mark vii. 5 (ἔπειτα ἐπερωτῶσιν accord- 
ing to many MSS., see vs. 2). 

Of the usage (see B. p. 404 note) by which a Participle, rendered 
a substantive by means of the Article, is taken up again by an 
Adjective Pronoun (otros, ἐκεῖνος), there are many examples: 
963 Matt. xxiv. 138; Mark vii. 15, 20; Luke ix. 48; John i. 18; v. 11; 

vii. 18; Acts iil. 22; xvii. 6; xv. 388; Rom. xiv. 14; (on Mark xii. 
40 see ὃ 123, 5 p. 79). All these examples are predominantly rhet- 
orical in their nature. The same thing happens often after substan- 
tives alone, and after Relative clauses, in order to bring the idea in the 
leading clause out again with a certain rhetorical emphasis, as John 
xii. 48; Rom. vii. 15, 19; ix. 6, 8 ete., and after the Infin. used sub- 
stantively,as Phil. i. 22 (see ὃ 149, 8d) p. 362). The case is different 
with the pronoun αὐτός. This, if it stands with the leading verb in 
the Nominative after a Participle, has its proper sense self, as 
1 Pet. v. 10; but if it stands in an oblique case its use is founded 
in the pleonastic style of the N.T. writers, which has been often 


§ 144.] THE PARTICIPLE WITH as. 307 


alluded to already (see § 130, 2 p. 142), and of which more will be 
said below, ὃ 145, 2 p. 315 (cf. § 151, 4 and 5 p. 379 sq.). 


Β. § 144, N. 14; H. $§ 793, 795e.; C. §§ 598 b.; 675 6.; 680; J. §§ ΤΟΙ βαᾳ.; G. § 109 N. 4. 

No example occurs of the addition of the words ἅτε, ola, 2% 
οἷον to Participles where the latter specify an objective reason. 
On the other hand, the connection of ὡς with a Participle is 
very common. We will bring together the cases that occur 
under the three following heads: 

a) The participial limitation is to be conceived of as uttered 
from the mind of the speaking or acting subject, no matter 
whether the statement it contains rests on a matter of fact or 
merely on a supposition, (quippe qui, as [Germ. als] one 
who etc.). 


For example, 1 Pet. ii. 18, 14 ὑποτάγητε τῷ βασιλεῖ ὡς ὑπερέχοντι ete. 
(subjective motive), Luke xvi. 1 διεβλήθη ὡς διασκορπίζων etc. (state- 
ment of the people), 1 Cor. vii. 25 γνώμην δίδωμι ὡς ἠλεημένος ete. 
(personal conviction), 2 Cor. vi. 9, 10 (general notion, which however 
is straightway corrected in the following clauses; cf. on the contrary 
the objective statements in vss. 3, 4), Rom. vi. 13; Heb. xii. 27 ; xiii. 
3, etc. ‘The understanding of such clauses is commonly facilitated by 
expanding them into participial clauses like εἰδότες, νομίζοντες, λέγοντες 
ὅτι followed by a finite verb (cf. Acts xxvii. 80 προφάσει ὡς μελλόντων 
etc.). 


v) The limitation rests on a comparison, whether with 
given or only supposed facts, objects, views, ( perinde ac, velut, 
quasi, tanquam, as [Germ. wie] one who etc.). 

For example, Acts iii. 12 ἡμῖν τί ἀτενίζετε, ds ἰδίᾳ δυνάμει πεποιηκόσιν 
ete., xxiii. 15 ὡς μέλλοντας διαγινώσκειν (Vulg. tanquam cognituri), 20 ; 
1 Cor. iv. 7 τί καυχᾶσαι ὡς μὴ λαβών (quasi non acceperis), v.3 ; 2 Cor. 
x. 14; Col. ii. 20; Heb. xi. 27. 

cy It contains, when the Participle stands in the Future, 


a>tatement of purpose, uttered in the spirit of the acting 
or speaking subject. 


This case occurs (since Future Participles are so rarely used, see 
10 p. 296) but once: Heb. xiii. 17 ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες. 
But since the Present, both in the Indic. and in the Participle 
(according to 11 above p. 296, and ὃ 137, 10. 11 pp. 203 sqq.), so 
often contains telic and other statements having reference to the 
future, we may unhesitatingly bring under this head also Rom. xv. 26.4 
15 ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, ὡς ἐπαναμιμνήσκων ὑμᾶς etc. 1 Thess. ii. 4 οὕτως 
λαλοῦμεν, οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες ἀλλὰ θεῷ. 


δ 


908 THE ῬΑΒΤΙΟΙΡΙΕ, [8144 


Remark. It is to be noticed besides, that examp.es of the parti- 
cipial structure with ὡς are found in all four cases, and have been 
given above (on ὡς before the Gen. absol. see particularly ὃ 145, 7 
p-318); further, that the Participle is sometimes to be supplied 
from the context, as Eph. vi. 7 per’ εὐνοίας δουλεύοντες, ὡς TO κυρίῳ καὶ 
οὐκ ἀνθρώποις, Col. iii. 23; 1 Pet. iv. 11, ete.; but particularly, that 
according to N. T. usage (see 18 p. 804) the Participle ὦν, ὄντος ete. 
is regularly dropped, so that the (predicative or adverbial) adjunct 
thereto pertaining is left standing alone with ws: 1 Pet. ii. 12 κατα- 
λαλοῦσιν ὑμῶν ὡς κακοποιῶν sc. ὄντων, Rom. xiii. 13 ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ (se. 


ὄντες) εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν, John vii. 10 etc. See in general 
Wahl under ὡς. 


B. 8144, N. 15; H. $795f.; C. 8 674f.; D. §§ 621. 622; J. $697d.; G. § 109, Ν. δ. 

That Participles are to be taken ina restrictive sense (although) 
is sometimes indicated simply by the connection, as Matt. xxvi. 60 
οὐχ εὗρον, πολλῶν προσελθόντων ψευδομαρτύρων ; but commonly by the 
addition of the particles καίπερ and καίτοι, especially in the Ep. to the 
Heb. (iv. 3; v. 8; vii. 5, etc.). The anticipatory position of ὅμως, 
which as respects the sense is not expected until later, occurs in 
1 Cor. xiv. 7 ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα, where a καίπερ is to be 
derived from the ὅμως for the Participle διδόντα, Gal. iii. 15 ὅμως 
ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ (where ὅμως is antithetic 
to the idea ἀνθρώπου κεκ. διαθ.). 


CIRCUMLOCUTION FOR SIMPLE TENSE-FORMS BY MEANS OF THE PARTICIPLE 
WITH εἶναι (γίνεσθαι). 
Β. 8144,9; H. 8 797; C. 8. 619; J. 8 816; W. p. 848 (826 sq.) 

It has been remarked in general, that the farther ancient 
languages become removed from their origin, the more their 
formations both in the department of nouns and of verbs are 
gradually resolved into their component parts; accordingly 
we find periphrases (not only of unusual tenses and those 
difficult of formation, but also of very common tense-forms) 
by means of εἶναι (γίνεσθαι) and Participles becoming more 
and more common in the later language. To be sure, a similar 
periphrastic mode of expression is found at all periods, and in 
the best writers, both of poetry and of prose; since in many 
instances it is entitled to preference above the common mode. 
Yet even a superficial comparison shows that the above- 
named construction appears incomparably more frequently in 
the N. T. writings than elsewhere, indeed that it is of such 
prominence as to impart to individual portions of the N. T. 9 


8144. THE PARTICIPLE AND εἶναι ΙΝ PERIPHRASIS. 309 


certain distinctive character which distinguishes their style from 
others. As it would be uncritical and erroneous amid the 
innumerable phrases of the sort found in the N. T. to discern 
in all cases solely a periphrasis for a simple tense-form, so 
on the other hand it would be a false and fruitless endeavor 
to claim that in every single instance they differ syn- 
tactically from the simple tense. In our attempt now to 
classify the cases, regardless of the question whether a given 
construction is to be taken in the periphrastic or the proper 
sense (for a strict separation of them into these two classes is 
neither theoretically nor practically feasible), the number of 
examples is so copious that we must at the outset disclaim any 
attempt at completeness in details. We remark 

1) That only those passages can be taken into consideration 
where the Participle has no Article, since when connected 
with the Art. the Participle must at once be construed as 
standing by itself i.e. as a part of the sentence separate from 
the copula, whether it be as subject (ἀληθές ἐστιν τὸ ywo- 
μενον, Tis ἐστιν ὁ παραδιδούς σε, etc.), or as predicate noun 
(σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ λαλοῦντες, see ὃ 129, 1 p. 
123 sq.), or as δὴ attributive (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ διδάσκων 
etc.) ; and | 

2) That a combination of the verb εἶναι (γίνεσθαι) with the 
anarthrous Participle in a periphrastic sense can only take 
place if the Participle is of the Present or the Perfect 
tense ; since, as will appear from the exposition that follows, a 
circumlocution with the anarthrous Aorist Part. does not 
and cannot occur. 


1 The correctness of this statement is at once apparent on a comparison of 
parallel passages. Thus the sentence τίς μου ἥψατο; (Mark v. 30) cannot be 
resolved into tis ἦν ἁψάμενος, but can only te rendered τίς (ἣν or ἐστιν) ὁ avd- 
μενος (Luke viii. 45); for τίς σοι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην (Matt. xxi. 23; 
Mark xi. 28) we find not τίς ἐστιν δούς σοι, but tis ἐστιν ὃ δούς σοι τὴν ἐξουσίαν 
ταύτην (Luke xx. 2); and for the Aorist ἰδόντες of μαθηταὶ γανάκτησαν (Matt. 
xxvi. 8) not ἦσαν ἀγανακτήσαντες, but only ἦσαν ἀγανακτοῦντες (Mark xiv. 4). 
Accordingly, where the Aorist Part. occurs in connection with εἶναι it always 
has the article: οὗτός ἐστιν 6 ῥηθείς (Matt. iii. 3), ὁ γενόμενος ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ (Acts 
vii. 38), ὁ πορθήσας (Acts ix. 21), 6 παρὰ τὴν 65dv σπαρείς (Matt. xiii. 19), 6 σπείρας 
ἐστὶν ὁ διάβολος (xiii. 39), τίς ἐστιν 6 παίσας σε (Matt. xxvi. 68; Luke xxii. 64) 
ete. Hence in Luke xxiii. 19, where the mss. are divided between ἦν βληθείς (Td. 
{Treg.]) and βεβλημένος (Lchm.), from a grammatical point of view the second 
reading is certainly the preferable one ; and its existence in the oldest mss. proves 
at least that offence was early taken at the unusual character of the other verbal 


265 


310 THE PAR‘TICIPLE. [8144 


The combination, then, of the verb εἶναι with a Present or a 

Perfect Part. without the article is employed 

266 a) If the writer wants to have the predicate of the sentence 

δῦ taken more in a substantial and qualitative than in a 
verbal sense, i.e. if not the idea of the action expressed by the 
verb as such —as it is contained in a finite verb — holds the 
place of the predicate, but the idea of the verb exhibited 
participially in the form of a noun (whether substantive or 
adjective). . 

Thus the sentence ἀνακρινόμεθα, ἐν τίνι οὗτος σέσωσται (Acts iv. 9) 
plainly differs from χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι (Eph. ii. 5) in this: that 
the predicate of the first is purely verbal (by what means he has been 
recovered), that of the other nominal (ye are recovered persons, saved 
ones). Further, John v. 7 ἄλλος πρὸ ἐμοῦ καταβαίνει (comes down 
before me) is different from Jas. i. 17 πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν 
καταβαῖνον (is one coming down from above, this is its attribute; cf. 
111, 15 οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη, ἐπίγειος, ψυχική etc.). The dis- 
tinction is the same when we say, the hairs of your head have been 
numbered (ἠρίθμηνται Luke xii. 7), and are (things) numbered (ἠριθμη- 
μέναι εἰσίν Matt. x. 80), or between J live (ζῶ Rev. iii. 1) and J am 
living (i.e. the living one ζῶν εἰμι i. 18). 

Among the numerous examples of this sort we select — with the 
Perfect Part., κεκαλυμμένος (hidden, dark), μεμεστωμένος ( filled, 
full), πεπωρωμένος (hardened), γεγονώς (old, natus, cf. p. 55 s8.v.), 
τετελειωμένος, εὐηγγελισμένος, ἡγιασμένος, ἀπηλλοτριωμένος, ἠλπικότες, Cte. 3 
with the Present Part. ποιοῦν καρπόν, καρποφορούμενον of such a 
nature that it bears fruit, fruitful), λόγον ἔχον (rational), ἔχων κτήματα 
πολλά (rich Matt. xix. 22; Mark x. 22, instead πλούσιος σφόδρα in 
Luke xviii. 23), ἦν ὑποτασσόμενος (subject), ἴσθι εὐνοῶν, ἴσθι ἐξουσίαν 
ἔχων, etc. In consequence of this adjectival nature of the Participles, 
they can occasionally with the aid of the Part. ὧν enter into a new 
participial formation, as Eph. iv. 18; Col. i. 21 ὄντες ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι, 
ἐσκοτισμένοι. 

ὃ ὃ[ὑὺ Although the idea of duration resides in the simple 
tense-forms of the Present and Imperfect, it does not belong 
to them invariably,! but does to the periphrases with the 


form. But it is still more probable that both βληθείς and βεβλημένος are later 
additions (hence the variation), and in point of fact cod. Sin. omits both. 

On the periphrasis for the various tenses by means of εἶναι and a Participle 
(particularly also with the doubtful or poetic Aorist Part.) see Dind. in Steph. 
Thesaur. sub εἰμί pp. 258, 259 ; Cobet, Nov. Lect. 307, 621; var. Lect. 322 ; Porson, 
Adv. 294 (260). 

1 Hence instead of the Moods of the Pres. (which, in contrast with the Moods 


§ 144.] THE PARTICIPLE AND εἶναι IN PERIPHRASIS. 811 


Participle and the Pres. or Imperf. of εἶναι ; hence the latter 
are pre-eminently suited to denote continuous actions 
or states. 


woos 24 ἑστώς, προσδεχόμενος, προσδοκῶν εἰμι, γίνου γρηγορῶν 
(Rev. iii. 2), ἦν πειραζόμενος (Mark i. 18), ἦσαν διὰ παντὸ ς αἰνοῦντες 
καὶ εὐλογοῦντες (Luke xxiv. 53) are more expressive than ἕστηκα, 
προσδοκῶ, γρηγόρει, ἐπειράζετο, etc.; ἦσαν νηστεύοντες (Mark ii. 18), 
καπηλεύοντες ἐσμέν (2 Cor. ii. 17) more emphatic than ἐνήστευον, καπη- 
λεύομεν, etc. In the Future, which in its simple form does not 
discriminate between the two ideas of duration and instantaneousness, 
the periphrasis is the only expedient by which to express definitely 
the idea of duration. Thus everybody feels the difference between 
ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι (Matt. x. 22 etc.), ἔσῃ σιωπῶν (Luke i. 20), ἀνθρώπους 
ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν (Luke v. 10), Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν (Luke 
xxi. 24) and μισηθήσεσθε, ζωγρήσεις, etc. Both species of Future are 
united in Mark xiii. 25 (ἔσονται πίπτοντες ... σαλευθήσονται). Also 
the Perfect Part. with ἔσομαι by no means always forms a periphrasis 
for the Futurum exactum, but on the contrary serves to transfer to 
the future as continuous the qualitative idea expressed by the Parti- 
ciple; as, Matt. xvi. 19 ὃ ἂν δήσῃς (Fut. exact.), ἔσται δεδεμένον, ὃ ἂν 
λύσῃς, ἔσται λελυμένον (not, will have been bound, but will remain 
bound etc.), xviii. 18; Luke vi. 40, and in connection with the simple 
Future in Luke xii. 52. 

Remark. It is not to be overlooked, that with many predicates in 
frequent use this mode of expressing continuance has become almost 
the established usage and suppressed the simple forms of the verbs. 
Thus the already mentioned use of ἦν καθήμενος for ἐκαθήμην (see 
p- 56), γεγραμμένον ἐστίν for the ordinary γέγραπται, 6 ἐστιν λεγόμενον, 
μεθερμηνευόμενον, & ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα. etc. Hence ἦν διδάσκων, ἣν 
(ἐγένετο) κηρύσσων, βαπτίζων, means simply he was teaching, preaching, 
baptizing, not he was a teacher, a baptizer etc., as may be seen from 
the additional adjuncts appended (e.g. the object, Matt. vii. 29; Mark 
i. 22; adverbial qualifications, Mark i. 39; John i. 26; iii. 23). 

c) In both the former cases (a) and b)) the emphasis always 
rests upon the Participle as the proper predicate, and εἶναι is 
simply acopula. But often it was of importance for the writer 
to give more prominence to the idea of being, existence, 
residing in the verb, than is done by the simple tense-form. 
This is accomplished likewise most naturally by Jong the 
Participle to εἶναι (generally preceding). 
of the Aor., denote duration pre-eminently ; cf. p. 201) the periphrasis is manifestly 


avoided, indeed hardly occurs. Hence in Jas. ii. 15 Lchm. ὦσιν is certainly 8 
later addition. 


267 


δ 


312 THE PARTICIPLE. [§ 144 


The Participle in such cases is either itself the subject of εἶναι, as 
Matt. xxiv. 38 ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες, γαμοῦντες Kal 
ἐκγαμίζοντες, Rom. iii. 12 οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα; or commonly 
an attributive to the expressed subject, as Acts xxv. 14 ἀνήρ τίς ἐστιν 
καταλελειμμένος ὑπὸ Φήλικος δέσμιος, Xxi. 23 εἰσὶν ἄνδρες τέσσαρες εὐχὴν 
ἔχοντες. In particular, under this head belongs the popular (oriental) 
manner of narrating, as the narrator at the beginning of his narrative, 
or as often as a new person or object is introduced, by 
means of the Imperf. ἦν or ἦσαν lingers as it were a moment on the 
object which is to be discoursed about, and then with a Participle 
following the subject continues his account, quite after the mode in 
which new events are introduced by ἐγένετο δέ etc. (δ 141, 6 p. 276). 
Examples are found especially in the Gospels: Matt. viii.. 30 ἦν δὲ 
μακρὰν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀγέλη ... βοσκομένη, xxvii. 55 ἦσαν γυναῖκες .. . θεω- 
ροῦσαι, 61; Mark ii. 6; iii. 1 Tdf. [Sin.](cf Matt. xii. 10 where ἰδού takes 
the place of the ἦν), v. 11; xv. 40; Luke ii. 8; John ii. 6; xi. 1, ete. 

2% d) Alsv, after deducting all the cases already mentioned, 
268 there are still a great many examples remaining, where the 
union of the Pres. Part. with the 3d Person of the Imperf. 
ἣν, ἦσαν, stands in narration simply for the historical Imperfect 
(alone in use in such cases in Greek authors) as distinguished 
from the momentary Aorist. These instances we are the more 
justified in taking pre-eminently for periphrases in the strict 
sense, as there are two writers especially who have a decided 
preference for employing them, viz. Mark and Luke. 

The following may pass for examples of such periphrases in the 
midst of a narrative. In mentioning them we will cite at the same 
time those parallel passages where, instead of the periphrasis, the 
simple Imperfect or the Aorist or another construction, e.g. a subor- 
dinate participial clause, makes its appearance. From Mark: ἦν 
καθεύδων (iv. 38, ἐκάθευδεν Matt. viii. 24), κράζων (v. 5), κατακόπτων 
(v. 5), ἦσαν συλλαλοῦντες (Var. συνελάλουν, ix. 4; cf. Matt. xvii. 3; 
Luke ix. 30), ἀναβαίνοντες (x. 32, cf. Matt. xx. 17), ἦν προάγων (x. 32), 
ἦσαν ἀγανακτοῦντες (xiv. 4, for which the Aorist in Matt. xxvi. 8, see 
note on 24 p. 309), ἦν συγκαθήμενος (xiv. 54, ἐκάθητο Matt. xxvi. 
58; Luke xxii.55). From Luke: ἦν προσευχόμενον (i. 10), διανεύων 
(i. 22), ἦν θαυμάζοντες (ii. 33), ἦσαν ἀτενίζοντες (iv. 20), ἦν συνεχομένη 
(iv. 38, cf. Matt. viii. 14), ἦν ἑστώς (v. 1, cf. Matt. iv. 18), ὑποχωρῶν (v. 
16), ἦσαν κατακείμενοι (ν. 29, συνανέκειντο Matt. ix. 10), ἦν διανυκτερεύων 
(Luke vi. 12), ἐκβάλλων (xi. 14, ἐθεράπευσεν Matt. xii. 22), ἦσαν παρα- 
τηρούμενοι (xiv. 1), ἐγγίζοντες (xv. 1), ἦν θέλων (xxiii. 8), ἦσαν πορευ- 
ὅμενοι (xxiv. 13), ἦν καιομένη (xxiv. 82) ; and quite as frequently in 
the Acts: i. 10,14; ii. 2; viii. 1, 28, etc. 


§ 144.] REDUNDANT PARTICIPLES. 818 


e) Lastly, it can only be regarded, grammatically, as ἃ cir- 39 
cumlocution, that in the Perfect and Pluperfect Passive 
(sometimes also Active), where in the ordinary language a 
periphrasis was already in general use in individual forms 
(as the 3d Pers. Plur. of the Pass., the entire Subjunct. and 
Opt.), the periphrastic forms with the Perfect Part. have 
become very prevalent also in the remaining Persons of 
the Indicative, perhaps in consequence of the influence of 
Latin upon the later language. The majority of instances 
of the sort are, moreover, from Mark and Luke again. 


Thus, for example, the Pluperfect appears periphrased in Mark 
i. 33; xv. 26 Hv ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ ἐπιγεγραμμένη, Luke ii. 26 ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρημα- 
τισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος, iv. 16,17; v.17; viii. 2; xxill. 19 (see 
24 note, p. 309), 38, 51, 53, 55; Actsi.17; xiv. 26; xvi. 9 Lchm. 
[Ταῦ Treg. ], xxii. 20; xviii. 25; xix. 32; xx. 13; xxi. 29; xxii. 29, 
and so also by other writers, e.g. Paul, but on the whole more rarely. 


REDUNDANT PARTICIPLES. 
B. § 144, N. 19; H. § 788; C. § 674; J. cf. § 696 Obs. 1; τοῦ, 4; G. §109 N. 8. 


Here mention must be made of an acknowledged Hebraism, 30 
particularly of the Greek Ὁ. T. The Seventy, namely, often 
added to a finite verb the Participle (Present or Aorist) of the 
same verb, always placing it close beside, indeed as a rule, 269 
before the finite verb. That in this way a special emphasis 
was not always aimed at, but that the combination is solely an 
imitation of the Hebrew construction with the Infin. absol., hag 
already been remarked in connection with the similar case in 
§ 153, 22 p. 183. Thus we find in the Sept. μισῶν ἐμίσησα, 
ἀναβάντες ἀναβησόμεθα, πατάξας πατάξω, ἔφαγεν ἔσθων. Baci- 
λεύων βασιλεύσεις, κυριεύων κυριεύσεις, ἀγείροντες ἤγειραν, 
ἐξαίρων ἐξῆρεν, πορευομένη πορεύομαι, μαχόμενος ἐμαχέσατο 
and many others, even when the Heb. text presents no similar 
construction ; as, Exod. xxiii. 26 (Piel), Gen. xix. 17. 

To the language of the N. T. this construction is strictly 
speaking foreign, since it is found only in quotations, viz. 
Acts vii. 34 ἐδὼν εἶδον, Matt. xiii. 14 βλέποντες βλέψετε, Heb. 


vi. 14 εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω σε καὶ πληθύνων πληθυνῶ σε. 


This species of pleonasm must have appeared still more strange to 
a native Greek, hence as a matter of fact nothing altogether similar is 


found in classic literature; see the exposition of the subject by Lobeck 
40 


314 CASES ABSOLUTE. [§ 145. 


in his Paralipomena p. 532, and the examples quoted there. Of a 
different sort, on the other hand, (as results from the very position 
of the Participle), and belonging to Greek usage, are such examples 
in the narrative style as ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων Matt. xiv. 27 etc., Luke 
xxiv. 6; John viii. 12; Acts viii. 26 ete. (cf. xxvi. 14), Rev. xvii. 1 ete. 
(for which in Mark vi. 50, according to 1 and 2 above pp. 288 sq., we 
find ἐλάλησεν ... καὶ λέγει), εἶπεν ... λέγων Mark xii. 26; Luke xx. 2, 
ἴστε γινώσκοντες Eph. v. 5. But in Acts xiii. 45 the disagreeable, 
indeed un-Greek, tautology (ἀντέλεγον ... ἀντιλέγοντες), which is 
especially surprising in the Acts, is not confirmed by the oldest mss. 

8 Remark. On the common transition from participial clauses into 
the finite verb as a continuation ofa participial clause, see § 151, 
8 p. 382. 


Cases ABSOLUTE. 
B, § 146,2. 8; H. δὲ 790, 191 ο.; C. §§ 675, 658b.; D. p.485sq.; J. ὃ 695, 2b.; 6. §§ 110, 111. 
1 In the N. T. also Passive Genitives Absolute are pretty 
rare (e.g. Matt. i. 18; Rom. ix. 11, etc.), and in no wise 
formed like the Passive Ablativi consequentiz in Latin (see 
particularly the instance in Heb. ix. 19, which is neither Latin 
nor Greek). In general, however, the N. T. writers are 
thoroughly conversant with the employment of the absolute 
construction according to the laws of the Greek language; 
only they go farther in this respect, that they disregarded 
grammatical accuracy (more frequently than Greek 
270 writers allowed themselves to do so) by employing this con- 
struction even when the subject of the participial clause was 
not only present in the governing clause in an oblique case, 
but even as its subject. Most of these instances, however, find 
their natural explanation in the circumstance (cf. reff. above) 
that the Gen. absol. precedes, and so the influence of the 
leading clause at the beginning of the sentence was still some- 
what in the background. That in this way often an (un- 
Greek) accumulation of Pronouns must result, has 
already been remarked § 130, 2 p. 142. 


In reference to the text we find here again such noticeable dis- 
agreement in the mss. (and consequently in the recent editions also) 
that a decision is often difficult: on the one hand, because it might 

_ just as easily happen that copyists of Greek education, taking offence at 
the inaccurate construction, should seek to remove it by alterations (for 
the most part trifling), as that others, once accustomed to a construc- 
tion employed on the whole so often, or in order to produce identit~ 


§ 145.] CASES ABSOLUTE. 315 


of expression in parallel passages, should write it eve where originally 
the regular idiom had been employed ; and because, on the other hand, 
the compass of the writings is not considerable enough to establish 
accurately the usage of the individual writers in this respect. Cf. the 
similar observation in ὃ 127,26 p. 118. We arrange the examples 
under the two heads: 

a) The Genitives absolute precede their leading clause, 
which already contains the subject of the participial clause ; 
and that 

a) In an oblique case:—hence either in the Dative, as Matt. 
ix. 18 ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς, ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἷς ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει 
αὐτῷ, ix.10; xviii. 24; xxiv. 3; xxvi.6; xxvii. 17, besides also v. 1 
Tdf. [Treg.], viii. 1, 5, 28 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.], xxi. 23 Lchm. [ Treg. 
Tdf.], Mark xiii. 1; Luke xii. 36 (see 4 p. 316), xiv. 29; xvii. 12; 
xxii. 10 εἰσελθόντων ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν πόλιν συναντήσει ὗ μῖν, John iy. 51; 
Acts iv. 1 (xx. 18 Lehm.); orin the Accusative, as Matt. xviii. 25 
μὴ ἔχοντος αὐτοῦ ἀποδοῦναι, ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ὃ κύριος πραθῆναι, Mark 
v.18; ἰχ. 28 Lchm. [Ἑτορ. Tdf.], χ. 17; χὶ. 27; xiii.3; Luke ix. 42; 
xv. 20; xviii. 40; xxii. 53; John viii. 30; Acts xix. 30; xxi. 17; 
xxv. 7; xxviii. 17; 2 Cor. xii. 21 μὴ πάλιν ἐλθόντος pov ταπεινώσει με 
6 θεός pov. But if it is present in the leading clause as a Genitive, 
the employment of the Gen. absol. with the subject expressed 
is even more irregular than with the Dative and Accusative, because 
it might easily have been avoided, but especially because in this way 
an accumulation (to a Greek ear far more disagreeable still) of 
altogether identical pronouns must often arise. Since, how- 
ever, precisely the same thing occurs with participial clauses in the 
Dative and Accusative (ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ etc., see the 
examples in ὃ 130, 2 p. 148), the genuineness of sentences of this 
kind also is not to be doubted: Matt. vi. 3 σοῦ δὲ ποιοῦντος ... μὴ 
γνώτω ἡ ἀριστερά σου, v. 1 Lehm., xxvii. 19; Mark ix. 28 Lchm. 
[ Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin. ] (where the Acc. may have arisen from emendation 
as easily as the Gen.), xiii. 1; Luke xv. 20; John iv. 51 αὐτοῦ κατα- 
βαίνοντος, ot δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ ὑπήντησαν aird.' 

B) Likewise as subject, so that leading clause and subordinate 
both have the same subject; as, Matt. i. 18 μνηστευθείσης τῆς 
μητρὸς αὐτοῦ... εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα, where the harshness of the 
_ construction is moderated by the parenthesis (πρὸ 7 etc.). In Acts 
xxii. 17 all three oblique cases in direct succession are in this way 

1 Of the opposite case also, viz. that the subject of the leading clause is 
contained in the antecedent Gen. abso]. in an oblique case (Genitive), an instance 


oceurs in Heb. ix. 19 λαληθείσης πάσης ἐντολῆς ὑπὸ Μωυσέως, λαβὼν (850 Move® * 
τὸ αἷμα. . ἐράντισεν. 


316 CASES ABSOLUTE. [$143 


united in a.single sentence: ἐγένετο δέ μοι ὑποστρέψαντι εἰς Ἵερ. καὶ 
προσευχομένου μου ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ γενέσθαι με ἐν ἐκστάσει. 

3 b) The Genitives absolute follow the governing clause. 
Since the anomaly of this structure is too conspicuous, and 
grammatically is even hardly to be justified, but few such 
examples are found. 

2 Cor. iv. 18 κατεργάζεται ἡ μῖν, μὴ σκοπούντων ἣ μῶ ν τὰ βλεπόμενα, 
probably in order to connect the participial clause more indépend- 
ently with the entire leading clause, not merely with the single 
word ἡμῖν. Heb. viii. 9 (quotn.) ἣν ἐποίησα ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου 
μου τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν etc. after a perfectly un-Greek construction in the 
Sept., so that the instance can hardly be reckoned as belonging to the 
Gen. absol. construction. For, apart from the grammatical error of 
employing the Gen. absol. where the subjects are identical, a native 
Greek could not possibly add the temporal adjunct (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ) besides, 
since this is already contained in the very construction, and the words ἡ 
if immediately dependent on ἐν ἡμέρᾳ must have run, ἡ ἐπελαβόμην 
(as Justin Mart.cum Tryph. 11 p. 228 actually writes; cf. Lam. iii. 57 ; 
Ps. xvii. 1; Lev. vii. 35), or at least with the Infin. rod ἐπιλαβέσθαι 
pe. Consequently the construction employed (which occurs also 
Baruch ii. 28) is nothing more than a thoughtless imitation of the 
original Hebrew ("pny isa, cf. Gesen. 320), of which no other 
similar example is to be found in the N. T. On Rey. xvii. 8 
(θαυμασθήτονται. .. βλεπόντων) see ὃ 144, 20, c) p. 306. 


B. § 145, 4; H. §791a.; C. §676.a.; J. § 695 Obs. 1; 6. 8 110,1 Ν. 2. 
4 It is rare that an instance occurs where the Participle (if its 
subject is obvious from the context) stands alone in the 
absolute case, — owing to the propensity of the N. T. writers 

to insert the pronouns everywhere (§ 130, 2 p. 142). 


Luke xii. 36 ἵνα ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος εὐθέως avoigwow αὐτῷ (cf. 
2 8) αν . 315), Acts xxi. 10 ἐπιμενόντων δὲ (Grsb. Rec. add ἡμῶν [ cod. 
Sin. αὐτῶν) κατῆλθέν τις etc. Rom. ix. 11 (see ὃ 129, 15 p. 133 sq.). 
Cf. besides Luke viii. 20 Tdf. (ἀπηγγέλη αὐτῷ λεγόντων [eds. 2, 77) 
and the various readings on Matt. xvii. 14, 26 (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. 
Sin.]). 
B. § 145, 5; J. 8 699. 

5 On the pretended Datives absolute for the Gen. abs. see ὃ 130. © 
2 note” p. 148. The state of the case is different if the subject of such 
an apparent Dative absol. contains itself the notion of time or instru- 

272 ment; in this case the employment of the Dative with the Participle 
is not only admissible (see the examples in the Gram.), but even if 


§ 145.] CASES ABSOLUTE. 317 


the N. T. is now restored, after mss. [Sin. also], with perfect confidence 
instead of the former Genitive, Matt. xiv. 6 yeveoious δὲ γενομένοις τοῦ 
Ἡρώδου ὠρχήσατο ete. 


B. 8146, NN. 4, 6, 7; H. §§ 7928q.; C. § 616 ἃ. sq.; J. §§ ΤΟῦ 5ᾳ.; 6. § 110, 2sq. 

Nominatives and Accusatives absolute. The 
instances in the N. T. which may be brought under the head 
of Nom. absol. have already, so far forth as the Participle is 
used as such (i.e. without an article), been quoted and treated 
of in full above, under ὃ 144, 6, 7 p. 292 sq. and 18 p. 298; 
but in so far as it is used with the article, the examples fall 
under 8129, 5 p. 78 and ὃ 151, 4 sq. p. 819 5ᾳ. Hence it remains 
for us here to speak of the possible occurrence of an Accusa- 
tive absolute. The peculiar classic use, however, of the 
Accus. absol. viz. with ὡς preceding (ἐσιώπα, ws πάντας εἰδότας 
he was silent as if all knew i.e. because he thought all 
knew) does not occur in the N. T. Hence, whatever else of 
the sort is found there, must, like most Nominatives absol. 
according to p. 298 above (cf. B. § 145 N. 6), be explained 
as anacoluthie. 


The construction, however, can be pointed out with confidence only 
in a single instance: Acts xxvi. 3 ἥγημαι ἐμαυτὸν μακάριον ἐπὶ σοῦ 
μέλλων ἀπολογεῖσθαι, μάλιστα γνώστην ὄντα σε πάντων etc. That 
the clause is actually an Accus. absol. is proved by the express in- 
sertion of the Subject (ce) with ὄντα, whereby all connection of the 
participial clause with some other portion of the sentence is prevented. 
It is to be explained as having arisen from a construction altered 
while in the mind, probably in view of what precedes, so that the 
intended thought was I esteem myself happy that thou art appointed my 
judge. Moreover, several interpreters would discover an Accus. 
absol. also in Eph. i. 18 (iva δῷ ὑμῖν πνεῦμα codpias..., πεφωτισμέ- 
vous τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν), the Participle not being 
referred to ὀφθαλμούς but to the persons addressed. That it cannot 
ve such, follows from the fact that the subject, hence in the form ὑμᾶς, 
is not expressed (as it is in the preceding passage). Consequently the 
Accusative must be connected by anacoluthon immediately with the 
preceding Dative ὑμῖν. But in opposition to that, too, it may be 
remarked, 1) that such a license, although perhaps it might be de- 
fensible in classic authors (especially poets), in the N. T. at least — 
even in Luke —can only be shown to occur with the Nominative, as 


1 Cf. with this the very similar sentence in the Act. Andr. (the style of which 
often reminds one. of Luke) § 18 : οὐδ᾽ ἄν σοι πιστεύσω, ἴδιόν μου σαυτὸν λέγοντά oe. 


318 CASES ABSOLUTE. $145 


the case whose construction is the lovsest, see the exposition in ὃ 144, 
13 p. 298; 2) that the choice of the Accusative of the Participle 
(without an expressed subject) would be the more surprising here, 
as the employment of the regular Dative (πεφωτισμένοις) referring to 
the preceding ὑμῖν was so natural. Hence, on grammatical grounds 
the other explanation (see § 125, 5 p. 94) unhesitatingly deserves the 
preference, as the more probable; the more so as the sense also is by 
no means opposed to it. 


B. § 145, N. 7; H. $798; C. § 675d.; J. § 701sq.; 6. $113, N. 10. 

7 Analogous to the examples of ὡς with the Participle 
(§ 144, 22 p. 807) is the appearance of the same particle in a 
similar sense before the construction of the Gen. absol. (Of 

273 the Acc. absol. with ὡς there is no example, as was said in the 
preceding paragraph.) 


1 Cor. iv. 18 ὡς μὴ ἐρχομένου μου πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἐφυσιώθησάν τινες, 2 Cor. 
v. 20 πρεσβεύομεν, ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος, 1 Pet. iv. 12 (ὡς ξένου 
συμβαίνοντος), 2 Pet. i. 3 ὡς πάντα τῆς θείας δυνάμεως δεδωρημένης etc.,— 
all which are to be taken as subjective motives of the following 
main action, and therefore, as on p. 307 above, to be resolved by εἰδότες 
ὅτι, or even simply by νομίζοντες, λέγοντες ὅτι ... 


B. 8146, Ν. 10; H. 8 192; C. §675b.; J. § 700; G. 8 110, 2. 

ὃ Impersonals in an absolute participial construction stand, as is 
well-known, in the Accusative. No instance, however, occurs in the 
N.T., except that Paul, instead of the short parenthetic clause εἰ τύχοι 
(used a few times, 1 Cor. xiv. 10; xv. 387), employs in 1 Cor. xvi. 6 
the neuter Acc. τυχόν. . This τυχόν, however, is used nearly in an 
adverbial sense even in classic writers, as Xenophon, Plutarch, et al. 
(see Pape under τυγχάνειν), and ought not to be taken otherwise here, 
since the leading mark of an Impersonal used verbally, viz. the 
dependent clause, is wanting: πρὸς ὑμᾶς, τυχὸν (tf ct so chances, perhaps), 
παραμενῶ καὶ etc. With ἐξόν however (Acts ii. 29; 2 Cor. xii. 4) 


ἐστίν is always to be supplied. Respecting ἀρξάμενον (Luke xxiv. 
47) see § 150, 7 p. 374. 
( Remark. A peculiar, but genuine Greek, example of the blending 


of two very current constructions, the absolute Participle and the Acc. 
and Infin., is found in Acts xxiii. 30 μηνυθείσης δέ μοι ἐπιβουλῆς εἰς τὸν 
ἄνδρα μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι, ἐξαυτῆς ἔπεμψα πρὸς σέ, which arose from the 
underlying grammatical combination μηνυθέντος (or μηνυθέν, see Β ὃ 145 
N. 10) μοι, ἐπιβουλὴν εἰς τὸν ἄνδρα μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι. See on this topic 
(of blended constructions) in general § 151, 10 below, p. 383. 


§ 146.] ADVERBS. 819 


ADVERBS. 
B. § 146, 4; H. 8 ὅ88 8ᾳ.; C. 8 708, 1; D. § 488; J. 8 526sq. 

The number of Adverbs which being joined to the Genitive 
have acquired almost the force of Prepositions, and hence 
are often employed as periphrases of the ordinary prepositions, 
may be increased from the N. T. The particulars here which 
are of importance grammatically, are the following : 

From the old preposition ἀντί arose by composition and derivation 
(besides the common ἐναντίον towards, in presence of, and ἀντικρύ over 
against), ἔναντι before (coram), ἀπέναντι and κατέναντι over 
against, in presence of, also against in a hostile sense (Acts xvii. 7) ; 
from ava the common ἐπάνω with the force of ὑπέρ with the Acc. in 
a local and immaterial sense above, over, in a numerical sense more 
than (see the constr. in § 132, 21 p. 168) Mark xiv. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 6. 
A preposition, unknown to the earlier writers (and that probably first 
arose in the East), with which principally the Seventy render the 
Heb. "35> and "3792, is ἐν cov in various constructions, to which for 
the most part our prep. before i.e. in conspectu, ante oculos corresponds, 
and often in circumlocutions for the Dative, see ὃ 133, 3 sqq. p. 172 sq. ; 
also compounded κατενώπιον, in the same signification. The 
adverbs ἔμπροσθεν before, ante, and ὀπίσω back, behind, even for 
ἀπό (Matt. xvi. 23, where immediately afterwards it is employed in 
altogether a different sense), are used in various peculiar constructions 
and significations; also in circumlocution for simple cases (see e.g. 
pp. 172, 176, 184). The word ἕως, until, rarely used elsewhere as 
a prep., is frequently found in the N. T. connected with the Gen. as 
well in a local as a temporal reference, particularly in Matt. and Luke. 
As a conjunction connecting clauses it stands as often in connection 
with the Relative οὗ, ὅτου, as without it; (so μέχρι, ἄχρι). “Ews can 
also be prefixed to other prepositions (and adverbs, see 4 p. 320, and 
cf. the Germ. bis); as, ἕως εἰς (πρὸς) Βηθανίαν, ἕως ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, 
ἕως ἔξω τῆς πόλεως. The neuter μέσον is once found used quite like 
a prep. in the sense of μετά or μεταξύ: Phil. ii. 15. 

Still more diffuse, and more or less Hebraistic, cireumlocu- 
tions for simple prepositions are formed by means of the 
substantives πρόσωπον (8:8), χείρ (2), στόμα (rp), 
ὀφθαλμός (5). 

For example: πρὸ προσώπου for the simple πρό, commonly with 
persons, once even metonymically in a temporal reference, Acts xiii. 24 
(πρὸ προσώπου τῆς εἰσόδου αὐτοῦ); ἀπὸ προσώπου (728%) for the 
simple. ἀπό (Acts, Rev.) ; further, ἐν προσώπῳ, κατὰ πρόσωπον, εἰς 
πρόσωπον followed by the Genitive, see the Lexx. With χείρ par- 


1 


27 t 


275 


4 


820 PREPOSITIONS BEFORE ADVERBS. [8 146. 


ticularly the instrumental διὰ χειρός and διὰ χειρῶν ; see on these and 
other phrases with χείρ ὃ 133, 20 p. 182. With στόμα, the analogous 
διὰ στόματος, see ibid.’ With ὀφθαλμός: Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii. 
11(quotn.) ἔστιν θαυμαστὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, Luke xix: 42 ἐκρύβη ἀπὰ 
ὀφθαλμῶν σου etc. 


B. §146,N.2; H. § 626; Ὁ. pp. 526, 572; J. $$ 529, 2; ΤΊ8 Obs. 4. 

Instead of the ordinary ἄνευ, Luke uses twice the poetic ἄτερ: 
xxii. 6, 35. Πλήν except, when it is to serve as the connective of 
clauses, is commonly in the earlier writers joined with other conjunc- 
tions (εἰ, ἀλλά, ὅτι, etc.).. In the N. T. however, as in general in later 
writers from Aristotle on, it often stands alone as an adversative 
conjunction. Cf. ἕως. 

B. § 146, N. 3; ef. W. 881, 8. 

Substantially under this head (of the Dative with adverbs) belong 
such examples as Matt. viii. 34; John xii. 13 ἐξῆλθεν εἰς ὑπάντησιν τῷ 
Ἰησοῦ, where the Dative is governed by the entire verbal idea (equiv. 
to ὑπήντησεν) ; on the other hand, in Matt. xxv. 1 the Gen. rod νυμφίου 
depends immediately on the Substantive ὑπάντησιν. 


PREPOSITIONS BEFORE ADVERBS. 


The facility with which prepositions connected themselves 
with other words, or were employed in composition, or were 
themselves, especially in the earlier language, used adver bially 
(ef. B. §147,N.5; H. ὃ 615; C. §§703 b., 706 ; J. 88 640, 644), 
occasioned a great multitude of constructions or compositions 
in part entirely new, adverbs coming todepend on 
prepositions just like substantives. 


Analogous to the above (1 p. 319) mentioned combinations with 
ἕως (viz. ἕως εἰς, ἕως ἐπί, etc.), we find also not only the regular ex- 
pressions, with article prefixed, ἕως τοῦ viv, ἕως τῆς σήμερον, but also 
without an article and in direct connaction, ἕως ἄρτι, ἕως πότε, ἕως κάτω, 
ἕως ἔσω εἰς (Mark xiv. 54), ἕως ὧδε, ἕως σήμερον, ἕως ἑπτάκις (as we too 
say until now, to here, etc.) ; likewise ἅμα, in the expression ἅμα 
πρωΐ, Matt. xx. 1. Further, of the old prepositions we find ἀπό 
thus used (it corresponding then entirely to our since), — in the phrases 
ἀπὸ τότε from (since) then, ἀπὸ πέρυσι since a year ago, ἀπὸ πρωΐ ἕως 
ἑσπέρας, a’ ἄρτι; on the other hand with the article, ἀπὸ rod viv, — 


1 Hebraistic, also, is the construction ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων (on the state- 
ment of two witnesses, Matt. xviii. 16; 2 Cor. xiii. 1, cf. Deut. xix. 15), and the 
expression — an imitation of the ἐν στόματι ῥομφαίας used very often by the Sept. — 
πεσοῦνται στόματι μαχαίρας, Luke xxi. 24; ef. Heb. xi. 34 (ἔφνγον στόματα waxalpns) 
and Gesen. sub MB no. 8. 


§ 147.] PREPOSITIONS. 321 


and ἐπί before adverbs of number without affecting their meaning, 
ἐπὶ τρίς, ἐφ᾽ ἅπαξ. Hence combinations of the sort were regarded also 
as actual compositions, and accordingly written in one word, as ἀπάρτι, 
ἐφάπαξ, dvrirépa’; further ὑπερλίαν, ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ, ὑπεράνω (Lchm. 
writes even ὑπερεγώ as one word in 2 Cor. xi. 23), ὑποκάτω, ἔκπαλαι, 
παραυτίκα. 

In general, however, this use takes place only to a limited extent 
and rather in certain customary and established phrases. That it 
reaches back to pretty early times, may be seen from Kiihner, ausf. 
Gr. § 620 [Jelf § 644]; Kriiger, Sprachl. § 66, and the examples for 
the entire language in Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 45 sq. 

Respecting the pleonastic combinations ἀπὸ μακρόθεν etc. see p. 70. 


PREPOSITIONS. 
B. $147; H. §§ 6l4sqq.; C. §§ 688 sqq.; D. ὃ 470 8ᾳ.; J. §§ 472. 614 sq. 

An acquaintance with prepositions, as respects their use and 1 
their signification, is of great and pervading importance for. 
the understanding of the N. T., since they, in the first place, 
were so often substituted for the constructions by case usual 
elsewhere (cf. p. 142), and secondly, deviate in their sig- 
nification, both as respects its contents and its compass, not 
unessentially from the ordinary usage. But to give an ex- 
haustive exposition of the subject would far transcend the 
limits of this grammar (indeed the complete exhibition of 
the N. T. use of the two prepositions ἐν and εἰς alone would 
require perhaps the space of a book); and the grammarian 
may the more readily desist from the undertaking, as the 276 
subject has already found minute consideration in the special 
lexicons? Here, as everywhere, he must confine himself 
merely to pointing out the prominent and distinguishing 
peculiarities of usage. 


PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 

"ANTI. In the signification of this preposition (instead of, 
Jor) no deviation occurs from ordinary usage; as, J ohn 1 i. 16 
χάρις ἀντὶ χάριτος grace for grace. 

ἈΠΟ is one of the prepositions most frequently used as 2 


1 This, and not ἀντιπέραν, almostall the mss. [Sin. also] have in Luke viii. 26. 
This (otherwise poetic, see Stephanus, Thes.) form in -a is found as early as Po- 
lybius. Tdf. accentuates it, after Mss., ἀντίπερα ; yet the accentuation according to 
analogy deserves the preference, since “ nulla est in accentibus codicum auctoritas.” 

2 See in particular the clear and well-arranged separate articles in Wahl’s clavis 
minor. 

41 


822 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [§ 147 


well in the O. T. as in the New, and often in a manner de 
viating from the ordinary usage. Its fundamental signification, 
viz. departure from the exterior of an object, is of course 
the prevalent one in the N. T. also. Yet this, as well as all 
those delicate shades in the signification of ἀπό which the N. T. 
has in common with classic Greek, remains excluded from our 
exposition; and even those individual instances where the 
preposition is used in a pregnant or especially characteristic 
sense, referrible nevertheless to its fundamental meaning, we 
must leave to the exegete,! turning our attention at once to 


1 This mode of proceeding —the only one which suits the scientific criticism of 
the present day — has, as matter of fact, come into general use now among recent 
commentators, and thus a multitude of absurd assertions in reference to individual 
senses of this preposition (and others) have been expelled from the province of 
N. T. exegesis. On this account, respecting such details in the use of the prepo- 
sitions we refer to the commentaries. For since such passages are by no means 
few in number, a detailed explanation and tracing out of the sense from the 
fundamental signification in every individual case, however instructive such a 
treatment might be for an acquaintance with the grammatical handling of these 
prepositions on the part of the Ν, T. writers, would carry us much too far. To 
render this evident once for all, we will here treat as briefly as possible of a 
number of such instances in the case of the prep. ard: Acts viii. 22 (cf. Heb. vi. 1) 
μετανόησον ἀπὸ τῆς κακίας σου ταύτης for in the idea of μετανοεῖν is included at the 
same time that of turning one’s self away (Luther renders it very freely 
repent for etc., similarly deWette on account of ete.), 2 Thess. ii. 2 σαλευθῆναι ἀπὸ 
τοῦ νοός to be thrown into violent mental agitation so as to lose one’s senses, 
Acts xvi. 33 παραλαβὼν αὐτοὺς ... ἔλουσεν ἀπὸ τῶν πληγῶν, the Vulg. renders 
freely lavit plagas, but literally to wash away the blood or the dust from the 
wounds, 2 Tim. i. 8 λατρεύω τῷ θεῷ ἀπὸ προγόνων from my forefathers i.e. in the 
way inherited from my forefathers, as they did, Col. ii. 20 ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ 
ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου, 2 Cor. xi. 3 φοβοῦμαι μὴ φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἀπὸ 
τῆς ἁπλότητος, Rev. xviii. 14 πάντα τὰ λαμπρὰ ἀπώλετο ἀπὸ σοῦ, ---- ἴῃ these last 
three passages the idea of turning away or of separation is plainly to be perceived in 
the verbal idea itself (in the case of ἀποθανεῖν and ἀπόλλυσθαι in their very outward 
composition), Rom. ix. 3 ηὐχόμην ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ to be accursed and 
thus fall from fellowship with Christ, Heb. xii. 15 ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος Tot 
θεοῦ keeping aback i.e. at a distance from grace, Rom. vii. 2, 6 etc. καταργεῖσθαι 
ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου. τοῦ Χριστοῦ, i.e. the law, Christ, has no influence on a man, and con- 
sequently he is released from the law, f:om Christ, Matt. xviii. 7 οὐαὶ τῷ κόσμῳ 
ἀπὸ τῶν σκανδάλων On account of temptation, i.e. the woe comes upon it from ete. 
Heb. v. 7 εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας on account of, in consequence of, his piety 
(see the recent comm.), Acts xx. 9 κατενεχθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου in consequence of, as a 
result of, the sleep (cf. ἃ) above), Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 35 ἐδικαιώθη ἣ σοφία ἀπὸ 
τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς is justified on or in her children, i.e. taking her children as our 
point of departure (considering their works) we perceive wisdom to be justified, 
exalted above the calumniation of mockers; but otherwise in Acts xiii. 39 ἀπὸ 
πάντων ὧν (1.6. ἀφ᾽ ὧν) οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε δικαιωθῆναι ἐν νόμῳ Μωυσέως justified and 
thereby freed from all etc., likewise in Luke v. 15; viii. 2 τεθεραπευμένος ἀπὸ 
πνευμάτων healed and freed from spirits; similarly Rom. vi. 7; Heb. x. 22. In 


8147. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 393 


those respects in which the usage of the N. T. (and essentially 
also that of the Old) differs from common usage, viz. in that 
the prep. ἀπό is employed where native Greeks would have 
preferred, a)acase alone, b) the prep. ἐκ, c) the prep. 
mapa, 4d) the prep. ὑπό. 

a) That the language of the N. T. often employed the prep- 278 
osition ἀπό (extended ἀπὸ προσώπου, see p. 319) where the 3 
earlier Greek was satisfied with the Genitive alone may be 
seen from §130,1 p. 141; § 132, 2.5. 7.12.17 ete. pp. 156 sqq. ; 
and that with verbs which otherwise ordinarily were joined 
with two objects-A ccusative, one of the nouns by virtue of a 
different conception of the thought is construed with ἀπό, see 
δ 131, 6 p. 149 and 8 134, 5 p. 189. Here we must attend to 
still another and altogether analogous use of ἀπό, which like- 
wise has already been incidentally mentioned: viz. the ideas 
to be on one’s guard, to protect, to be ashamed, to fear, 
and the like, as φυλάσσειν, φυλάσσεσθαι, φοβεῖσθαι, αἰσχύ- 
νεσθαι, βλέπειν, προσέχειν, προσέχειν ἑαυτῷ (in the O. T. also 
ἐκστῆναι, πτοηθῆναι, στέλλεσθαι, etc.), frequently take after 
them the object of the fear etc. in the Genitive with azo. 

See the examples above in § 135, 3 p. 192, and in the lexicons, 
under the several words. Compare also é« below, and on Acts v. 35 
(προσέχειν ἑαυτῷ ἐπὶ τοῖς etc.) under ἐπί p. 337. This construction 
might be regarded as an expansion of the classic use of φυλάσσειν 
(Xen. Hell. 7,2,10; Cyr. 1, 4,7); but more probably it grew to such 
an extent under the influence of foreign idioms, viz. of the Latin (cf. 
specifications of time often merely the name of the person is used, brachylogically, 
as ἀπὸ ’ABpadu since the time of Abraham; metonymically ἀπὸ αἵματος “Ae, etc. 

1 We expressly say preferred, and thereby admit that even in Greek authors 
occasionally the mode in which the N. T. writers are wont to express themselves 
can be met with as an isolated phenomenon. Yet it would be very rash to insist 
on inferring a general usage on account of isolated passages in classic authors 
(how often an author in the moment of writing creates new constructions!) ; and 
indeed the bringing together of parallel passages, often from out of the way and 
sometimes from extremely heterogeneous writings by profane authors, has in 
many cases done more harm than benefit to the interpretation of the N. T. To 
be sure, the ke ginnings of acorruption may be sometimes pointed out in native 
authors ; then to establish the peculiarity of the N. T. usage it is absolutely neces- 
sary to shoyy how what in Greek authors remained an isolated phenomenon, 
without infiuence on the general (or more correctly, the literary) usage, became 
in the ΝΜ, tL. customary and not infrequently the rule. Far more frequently, 
however, she N. T. usage has quite another origin than phenomena, externally 


similar, in classic writers; and then the explanation of it, and of the particular 
passages ia which it occurs, must be derived from other sources than the classics. 


324 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [§ 147 


the constructions cavere, timere, tueri, αὖ aliquo) on the later Greek, 
and of the Hebrew use of ja and “389 upon the language of the Old 
and N. T. particularly; (cf. Gesen. under x7, ΤῸ, 28, wiz). 
Examples of the same construction in the Sept. are of ἀπό, Jer. 
x. 2; xii. 13; xxxi. 13; ii. 36; Ps. cxx.7; Josh. vi. 18; Deut. i. 29; 
Ecclus. xvii. 14, etc. of ἀπὸ προσώπου (728%), Jer. i. 17; Ezek. 
ii. 6; iii. 9; Mal. ii. 5; Josh. xi. 6; Eccl. viii. 12, ete. 

4 Ὁ) ἀπό stands where a more exact designation of the relation 
would have required ἐκ. Of this the following passages may 
serve as examples: 


Matt. vii. 16 ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε, where ἐκ would have been 
the more precise expression (cf. the variants on vii. 20 Lchm.), Heb. 
xi. 84 ἐδυναμώθησαν ἀπὸ ἀσθενείας, Rey. xiv. 3, 4 ἀγορασθῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς 
γῆς; ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Also in the periphrases for the partitive Gen. 

279 with πίνειν, ἐσθίειν, χορτάζεσθαι, γεμίζειν ordinary usage would certainly 
have preferred ἐκ (see ὃ 182, 12 p. 163), likewise in such phrases as 
οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας Acts (xii. 1), of ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως (xv. 5), ἔχειν τὸ 
ἔνδυμα ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμήλου Matt. (iii. 4, οἵ. λάρναξ ἀπὸ σιδήρου App. 
B. C. 4, 44), ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους Acts (ii. 5), ete. In 
specifications of descent, ἀπό in Greek writers designates rather the 
more remote*and general, ἐκ the more immediate and special, origin. 
Nevertheless in the N. T. the combinations 6 ἀπὸ Ναζαράθ, 6 ἀπὸ 
᾿Αριμαθαίας, οὐδεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς φυλῆς, ἦν Φίλιππος ἀπὸ Βηθσαϊδά (John i. 45, 
although ἐκ τῆς πόλεως immediately follows in apposition) are quite 
as frequent as the regular of ἀπὸ Κιλικίας, ete. Both prepositions 
occur in their proper relation in Luke ii. 4 ἀνέβη ᾿Ιωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς 
Γαλιλαίας ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαράθ. 


ὔ 0) where usage would have preferred παρά. 


Thus mention has already (§ 132, 17 p. 166) been made of the 
thoroughly unclassical construction of ἀπό with ἀκούειν. It occurs far 
more commonly still with μαν θ άν εἰν, ---- ἀηα that not only when it 
has the signification to learn on (i.e. from the case of) a person or 
thing, as Mark xiii. 28 etc. ἀπὸ τῆς συκῆς μάθετε τὴν παραβολήν, Matt. 
xi. 29 μάθετε ax’ ἐμοῦ, but also in the signification to be informed, 
cognoscere, hence for παρά, as Gal. ili. 2 τοῦτο θέλω μαθεῖν ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, 
Col. i. 7 καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπ᾿ "Exadpa (on the other hand, παρά in 2 Tim. 
iii. 14),— and with other verbal ideas, as λαμβάνειν and its com- 
pounds, Matt. xvii. 25, 26; 1 Cor. xi. 23; Col. iii. 24; Heb. vi. 7; 
8 John 7, δανείσασθαι Matt. v. 42; further, in constructions like 


! Yet the construction with παρά is likewise frequent with these verbs, and in 
particular is always used when the recipient takes a thing from the giver im- 
mediately; see the exposition in Winer p. 370 (347) note. 


§ 147.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 395 


ὃ ἔπαινος γενήσεται ἑκάστῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἔχειν τι ἀπό twos (1 Cor. iv. 55 
vi. 19; 1 Tim. iii. 7), and after substantives, as δόξα ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν 1 Thess. 
ii. 6, διαθήκη ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ Gal. iv. 24, σημεῖον ἀπὸ σοῦ θέλομεν ἰδεῖν 
Matt. xii. 38, and the like. 

4) Where the Greeks preferred ὑπό. Primarily with Active 6 
verbs to designate the motive (Lat. pre, our for, out of, 
from), as Matt. xiii. 44 ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτοῦ ὑπάγει καὶ πωλεῖ 
πάντα (on the addition, likewise unclassic, of the Pron. αὐτοῦ 
see § 127, 26 p. 118; on the other hand, without a Pron. Acts 
xii. 14), Matt. xiv. 26 ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου ἔκραξαν, Luke xxii. 45 
κοιμωμένους ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης ; similar to this use are such ex- 
amples as ἀπὸ Tod ὄχλου οὐκ ἠδύνατο Luke (xix. 3), οὐκ ἴσχυον 
ον ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν ἰχθύων John (xxi. 6), οὐκ ἐνέβλεπον 
ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τοῦ φωτός Acts (xxii.11). In the second place, 
with Neuter Verbs containing a Passive idea, and even with 
actual Passives, to designate the personal author, hence 
precisely for ὑπό and the Gen., or the Latin a with the Abl.; 
sometimes also to denote the cause, and so for the Dative 
with the Passive otherwise usual. 


This last-mentioned use has, indeed, been often disputed ; but incor- 289 
rectly, if we compare the examples given below, in all of which the 
Greeks would hardly have expressed themselves otherwise than by 
ὑπό, or by means of very different constructions. ‘That the possibility 
of this use has been doubted, is solely owing to the fact that earlier 
expositors, ungrammatically enough to be sure, asserted that ἀπό was 
used in the N. T. indiscriminately for ὑπό, and quite in the same sense. 
The correct explanation, on the contrary, is this: that in cases where 
the Greeks used ὑπό to designate an internal causal relation, the 
N. T. writers contented themselves (more frequently than is the case 
in the classics') with a more external statement of relationship by 
means of ἀπό, just as they (according to Ὁ) p. 824) so often used the 
same preposition where the more exact view of the relation required 
ἐκ. The intrinsic force of ἀπό, accordingly, is on our supposition in 
no wise altered, but only the construction with this prep. set as a loose 
and inexact usage over against that which grammatically is preferable 
and more correct. Yet it is to be carefully noticed, that even in the 
N. T. the lax usage is only exceptional and the construction with 
ὑπό or the Dative to be assumed as a rule throughout, as well 
as that many passages were referred to this usage by the (earlier) 

1 For that at least analogous modes of expression are to be found also in earlier 


writers, and consequently that the above supposition is philologically well founded, 
may be seen in Poppo on Thre. 1. 17. 


326 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [ 147 


expositors where the interpretation of ἀπό in its original sense appears 


’ to be thoroughly admissible ; (cf. the note on p. 322 and Winer 371 


281 


(848) note). Perhaps, too, it is not accidental that in several of the 
following examples the governing verb itself is already compounded 
with ἀπό; cf. the example from Acts xv. 38 in ὃ 151, 2 p. 377. 

Examples: 1) With Neuter verbs, Matt. xvi. 21 πολλὰ παθεῖν 
ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων (var. ὑπό), cf. Mark viii. 31 etc.; 1 Thess. ii. 14 
var., 2 Thess. i. 9 δίκην ticovew ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου Kal ἀπὸ τῆς 
δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ. Similarly Rev. xviii. 15 of πλουτήσαντες ἀπ᾽ 
αὐτῆς (deWette, die von thr d. h. durch sie reich geworden, that became 
rich from her, cf. ἐκ below). 

2) With actual Passives, Mark viii. 31 [tro]; Luke ix. 22; xvii. 
25 πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ete. cf. 1 Pet. 
ii. 4 var., Acts ii. 22 ἄνδρα ἀποδεδειγμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ,; 2 Cor. vii. 13 
ἀναπέπαυται τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ πάντων ὑμῶν, Jas. i. 13 ἀπὸ θεοῦ πειρά- 
ζομαι, v. 4 (μισθὸς) ὃ ἀπεστερημένος ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν (kept back by you), Rev. 
xii. 6 τόπον ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, Acts iv. 86 ἐπικληθεὶς Βαρνάβας 
ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων where ἀπὸ has only by the recent editors been re- 
stored instead of the ὑπό of the Rec.; likewise x. 33 πάντα τὰ mpoore- 
ταγμένα σοι ἀπὸ [Lchm.] rod κυρίου (var. παρά and ὑπό [the latter 
given by cod. Sin. and adopted by Tdf. and Treg.])? 

To the above examples the following also may be added, 1 Cor. i. 30 
ἐγενήθη σοφία ἡμῖν ἀπὸ θεοῦ (for θεός appears here as the efficient 
cause, see the Comm.), Matt. xxviii. 4 ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου αὐτοῦ ἐσείσθησαν, 
Jude 23 χιτῶνα ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον, Rey. ix. 18 ἀπεκτάνθησαν 
ἀπὸ τῶν τριῶν πληγῶν τούτων, a peculiarly turned expression for they 
died of (from) the wounds (cf. 2 note p. 322). 

Remark. On the local specification ἀπὸ σταδίων etc. see ὃ 181, 11 
p- 153. 

"EK. Although this preposition often appears in peculiar 
phrases, yet it departs in no point essentially from the ordinary 
usage; hence for its use in the main the reader may be referred 
to the exposition given in the dictionaries and the general 
grammars. Further, since the idea of the prep. is so forceful 
and transparent that it could hardly be obscured by the modi- 
fications of usage, a brief reference here to a few particular 
cases will suffice. 


Owing to the affinity in signification between ἐκ and ἀπό, it is 


1 In Luke i. 26 also the better attested reading (codd. Vat. Sin. [also Tdf. Treg.]) 
is ἀπεστάλη ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ; and this is not to be translated, away from God. 

2 The existence of these variants in the best and oldest mss. is a proof that that 
loose use of ἀπό was known, and that an endeavor was made to get rid of it by 
various corrections of a classic tone. 


8147. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 397 


natural that both should often serve to denote one and the same 
relation; hence both are united in John i. 45 (see 4 p. 324), 2 Cor. 
iii. 5; Rev. ix. 18, and with a certain distinction in Luke ii. 4 (see 4 
Ρ. 324). Hence, further, (as follows from what is said in ὃ 132) with 
so many verbal ideas the Genitive was more closely defined now by ἐκ, 
now by ἀπό. Thus μετανοεῖν in the Rev. is uniformly joined to 
ex (see Wahl) instead of to ἀπό (see 2 note p. 322), and τηρεῖν 
(διατηρεῖν) is construed not like the other verbs signifying to be on 
one’s guard etc. (see 3 p. 823) with ἀπό but with ἐκ, John xvii. 15; 
Acts xv. 29; Rev. iii. 10. It serves (far more frequently than ἀπό, 
and rather in a classic acceptation) to designate the author or the 
cause with Neuter and Passive verbs: so, for example, very com- 
monly (like ex in Latin) after γεννηθῆναι, as well as the corresponding 
predicates ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχειν Matt. i. 18, κοίτην ἔχειν Rom. ix.10; further, 
after the Neuter verbs ἀποθανεῖν, ἔπαινον ἔχειν, πλουτεῖν (cf. ἀπό), ζῇν, 
ζωή ἐστιν ἔκ τινος, κεκοπιακὼς ἐξ ὁδοιπορίας and the like, after Passives 
like ὠφελεῖσθαι, δεδομένον ἐστίν, λυπεῖσθαι, ζημιοῦσθαι, συνέχεσθαι, ἀδι- 
κεῖσθαι, and in such phrases from the Rev. as πυροῦσθαι ἐκ πυρός, 
σκοτοῦσθαι ἐκ καπνοῦ, φωτίζεσθαι ἐκ δόξης. Cf. also 2 Cor. i. 11; Eph. 
iv. 16 and the Commentaries on these passages. 

On the divers constructions of εἶναι and γίνεσθαι with ἐκ, both in a 
proper and in a tropical sense, see ὃ 132, 11 p. 162sq. On the peri- 
phrasis with ἐκ for the Partitive Gen., and the construction (to be 
referred to this Gen.) with διδόναι, λαμβάνειν, φαγεῖν, ἐσθίειν and the 
like see ibid. 6, 7 p. 159, and with the idea of fulness ibid. 12 p. 163. 
On the (substantival) phrases with é« and the article see § 125, 9 p. 95. 
Lastly, by means of ἐκ are formed many adverbial expressions, as ἐκ 
ῥιζῶν radicitus, ἐξ αὐτῆς illico, ἐκ δεξιᾶς, ἐξ ἀριστερᾶς, ἐκ δευτέρου, ἐξ 
ἱκανοῦ, ἐκ περισσοῦ, ἐκ συμφώνου, ἐξ ἀνάγκης, ἐξ ἰσχύος, the Hebraistic 
ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός (cf. Isa. xlix. 1; Judges xvi. 17, etc.), and many others. 


Owing to the obviousness of the relations they express, the 8 
two opposite prepositions ἐκ and εἰς were employed in all sorts 282 
of brachylogical and pregnant phrases, the meaning 
of which is easily suggested by the phrase itself or by the 
context. 

For example: παρεγένετο ἐξ ὁδοῦ, πότε ἀναλύσῃ ἐκ τῶν γάμων, πλέκειν 
στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν, ποιεῖν φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων, ὁ ὧν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ 
τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ John iii. 81, λαλεῖν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου 
1 John iv. 5, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων John viii. 44, ἐξ εἰλικρινείας, ἐκ θεοῦ 2 Cor. 
ii. 17, ἀναμένειν τὸ ’ υἱὸν ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν sc. ἐρχόμενον 1 Thess. i. 10. 
Similar constructivns with εἰς are the following: Matt. x. 27 ὃ εἰς τὸ 
οὖς ἀκούετε sc, λαληθέν, Acts xi. 22 ἠκούσθη ὃ λόγος εἰς τὰ ὦτα τῆς 


828 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. [§ 147 


ἐκκλησίας, Luke vii. 1 ἐπλήρωσεν πάντα τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς 
τοῦ λαοῦ (i.e. which he spoke to or in their ears), Matt. x. 9 μὴ «rj 
ϑηθθε χρυσὸν εἰς τὰς ξώνας (in order to put it into etc.), Acts xvi. 24 
τοὺς πόδας ἠσφαλίσατο eis τὸ ξύλον sc. δήσας. See besides, Mark x. 10; 
John xvi. 21; 2 Cor. v. 5; viii. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 20;—on εἶναι εἰς οἶκον, 
eis τὴν κοίτην, 15 below, p. 882 ;—on ἔνοχος εἰς τὴν γέενναν and the like, 
§ 132, 23 note? p. 170. 

That general predicates, like to be, to go, to come, are often omitted 
with both prepositions may be seen in its place, 8161, 24, b) p. 394. 

ΠΡΟ. On the Hebraistic circumlocution πρὸ προσώπου see 
§ 146, 1 p. 319; on πρὸ with the Infin. for πρίν, ὃ 140, 11 
p. 265; and respecting πρὸ ἕξ ἡμερῶν etc. § 131, 11 p. 153. 


PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 


9 "EN is by far the most common of these prepositions, and 
used in the most diversified references, both proper and tropical, 
external and internal. See the classification in Wahl’s smaller 
clavis; and on the numerous constructions of ἐν with verbs 
instead of the simple cases §§ 131-133. For our purpose (cf. 
1 above, p. 321) we select the following: 

a) There are a number of passages in which ἐν is joined to 
verbs which contain the idea of motion, so that ἔν stands to 
a certain extent for εἰς ; and, on the other hand, εἰς is often 
found connected with the idea of rest (see εἰς p. 332). 


Although in presence of the countless examples of the correct 
grammatical use of these two prepositions in the N. T. there cannot 
be any talk of a complete obliteration of the distinction between them, 
it would nevertheless be idle,—#in fact, contrary to the simple and 
natural interpretation of many passages, and prejudicial,—if we 
should attempt to deny that, as compared with the literary usage of 
classic prose, there is a certain carelessness and license in the employ- 
ment of both; and this is in perfect harmony with the popular style 
of expression, (cf. the numerous passages in Homer where ἐν is used 
in the same way). In reference to ἐν there is the less reason for the 
denial, as according to p. 71 the local adverbs ἐκεῖ, ἐνθάδε, ποῦ, ὅπου, 
ete., are so often construed with verbs of motion; and similar observa- 

283 tions may be connected with other prepositions, see under ἐπί, παρά, 
πρός. The idea of the preposition itself, however, remains in all such 
eases unaltered. When, therefore, év stands with a verb of motion, 
it does not thereby receive the signification of «is; on the contrary, 
grammatically this is always to be explained by the circumstance that 
the writer has in view the result of the motion, or the sphere in 


§ 147.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 399 


which the motion occurs, rather than the motion itself. Compare 
with this the Latin construction of ἐπ and the Ablat. with verba 
ponendi, etc. So we find,in analogy with that Latin usage, the 
following verbs joined to ἐν: τιθέναι (also τέθεσθαι in a tropical 
sense) and ἱστάναι (στῆσαι) together with their compounds; as, 
Matt. xviii. 2; xiv. 3; xxvii. 29, 60; Mark vi. 29; ix. 36; xy. 46; 
Luke i. 66; xxi. 14; xxiii, 58; John xix. 41; Acts iv. 7; y. 4 (ἔθου 
ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου), 18, 25, 27; vii. 16; ix. 37; xix..21 (θέσθαι ἐν τῷ 
πνεύματι), 2 Cor. v.19. But the construction with εἰς continues at 
the same time in use; cf. Acts v.18 with iv. 3; y. 25 with xii. 4; 
Mark vi. 29 with Acts xiii. 29. In other passages, with these verbs 
all reference to the whither is excluded, as Acts y. 27 (differently 
xxii. 30), Rom. ix. 33; 1 Cor. xii. 18, 28, ete. While with these verbs 
the construction with ἐν became, perhaps in consequence of Roman 
influence, a species of usage, isolated instances of something wholly 
analogous are found with other verbs of motion: thus in particular 
with the closely related verb διδόναι, as John iii. 35 (cf. xiii. 3), 
2 Cor. i. 22; viii. 16; further, with ἐλθεῖν and its compounds, Luke 
ix. 46; xxiii. 42; 1 Thess. i. 8; Rev. xi. 11, ὑποχωρεῖν Luke v.16 
(καταβαίνειν John ν. 4), ἀποστέλλειν Matt. x. 16; Luke x. 3, 
πέμπειν Phil. iv. 16, πίπτειν (cf. Pape sub voce) Heb. iy. 11. 
And then belong here, ἐμβάπτειν τὴν χεῖρα ἐν τῷ τρυβλίῳ Matt. xxvi. 23, 
ἔστρωσαν τὰ ἱμάτια ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ Matt. xxi. 8; Luke xix. 36, ἐπιστρέψαι 
ἀπειθεῖς ἐν φρονήσει δικαίων Luke i. 17, cf. Mark ν. 80, τὸ ἐσπαρμὲνον 
ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ Matt. xiii. 19, ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις Rom. v. 5. 
On the other hand, the following admit of a different explanation: 
1 Cor. vii. 15 ἐν εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὃ θεός, and Eph. iv. 4 ἐκλήθητε ἐν 
μιᾷ ἐλπίδι, see the Comm.; and if ἀγάπη is joined as well to εἴς τινα 
(2 Cor. ii. 4, 8 ete.) as to ἔν τινε (2 Cor. viii. 7; cf. 1 John iv. 9, 16), 
the reason is contained in the nature of dydéay,—an idea which now 
may be conceived of as active, and now at rest. 


Ὁ) Although the numerous shades of signification of ἐν are 
all to be traced back more or less closely to the original idea 
of the preposition, yet in one respect in consequence of Oriental 
influence (cf. § 188, 17 p. 181) an element originally alien 
to the idea ef the prep., and at variance with the ordinary 
Greek usage, has become blended with it. That is to say, év 
in the Old and New Testaments is very commonly used, like 
the prep. 2 in Hebrew, to designate the means: and that not 
only with things (equiv. to the instrumental Dative), but also 
with persons (ec uiv. to διά with the Gen., Latin adjutus, opera). 


We will seleet only a few of the examples, since they are to be found 


10 


330 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. [8 147. 


on almost every page: Luke xi. 19, 20 ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ, ἐν δακτύλῳ θεοῦ 
ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια, Matt. xxii. 43 ἐν πνεύματι καλεῖ αὐτὸν κύριον in 


284 the Spirit i. impelled by the Spirit; and so frequently ἐν θεῷ, ἐν 


1 


Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου, Χριστοῦ, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, ἐν τῷ 
᾿Αδάμ, ἐν σαρκί, etc., Acts iv. 7 ἐν ποίᾳ δυνάμει ἢ ἐν ποίῳ ὀνόματι ἐποιή- 
gate τοῦτο; 9 ἐν τίνι οὗτος σέσωσται; 10 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι I. Xp., ἐν τούτῳ 
οὗτος παρέστηκεν ὑγιής, 1 Cor. v. 8 ἑορτάζωμεν μὴ ἐν ζύμῃ παλαιᾷ... 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀζύμοις etc. See also on the addition and the omission of ἐν with 
the instrumental Dative, ὃ 183, 19 p. 182; and on the diversified con- 
structions (arising from this) of ἐν with verbal and adjectival ideas, 
particularly with verbs expressing emotion, §$ 131-133 pp. 146 sqq. 
On the Infin. with ἐν see § 140, 9 p. 263sq. When, on the contrary, 
ἐν seems to stand for σύν (i.e. with the accompaniment of) it is always 
to be referred to the idea among, in the midst of, —as Matt. xvi. 28 
ἐρχόμενος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ (not to his royalty, but in the midst of, 
or in the splendor of, his royalty; see Fritzsche in loc. and ef. § 133, 
22, b) p. 184), Luke xiv. 31 ἐν δέκα χιλιάσιν ὑπαντῆσαι TO μετὰ εἴκοσι 
χιλιάδων épxowévw, —or is to be explained as an instrumental ἐν by 
supplying a verbal idea, as ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ (Mark i. 23, 
§ 125, 11 p. 96), εἰσέρχεται ἐν αἵματι Heb. ix. 25, ἐν ῥάβδῳ ἔλθω ἢ ἐν 
ἀγάπῃ πνεύματί τε πραὕτητος ; 1 Cor. iv. 21. 

0) Among the various combinations of εἶναι (γίνεσθαι, 
ἔχειν.) with ἐν, we give prominence (as a peculiarity) to the 
mode of periphrasing the predicate belonging to εἶναι ete. by 
means of ἐν and an abstract term in the Dative. 


Thus often in Luke, as ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν 6 λόγος αὐτοῦ his discourse was 
powerful (iv. 32), ot ἐν τρυφῇ ὑπάρχοντες the luxurious (vii. 25), γυνὴ 
οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος a flowing woman (viii. 43), ὑπάρχων ἐν βασάνοις 
suffering pain (xvi. 28), ἐν ἔχθρᾳ εἶναι, ἐν κρίματι εἶναι, etc. John vii. 4 
ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι to be manifest, 1 Thess. ii. 6 ἐν βάρει εἶναι to be esteemed 
(or severe) ; further ἐν δόξῃ, ἐν ὑπεροχῇ, ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ, ἐν περιτομῇ εἶναι, 
ἔχειν ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ, ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, ἐν ἑτοίμῳ, ἐν παραβάσει γίνεσθαι, ete. 

d) Not less peculiar are many adverbial expressions 
formed with ἐν and the Dative, particularly if they stand in a 
measure where the classic language would sooner have em- 
ployed a participial clause or an adjective with ὦν. 


Such (eagerly and often used) adverbial phrases in the N. T. are 
the following: ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ, ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ἐν σοφίᾳ, ἐν πραύτητι 
(equiv. to ἀληθῶς, ἐκτενῶς, δίκαιοι, σοφοὶ ὄντες, etc.), Acts ii. 46 μετε- 
λάμβανον τροφῆς ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ ἀφελότητι καρδίας (equiv. to ἀγαλ- 
λιώμενοι καὶ ἀφελεῖς ὄντες), 1 Cor. xv. 42, 48 σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾷ, ἐν 
ἀτιμίᾳ, ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ - ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, ἐν δόξῃ, ἐν δυνάμει, cf. vs. 44. 


8147. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 331 


Thus such a phrase joined to a substantive, without the addition of 
ὧν or any other participle, often takes the place of an Adjective 
belonging to the same (cf. § 125, 2 p. 91, 11 p. 95 sq., and the examples 
quoted there) ; as, Tit. iii. 5 ἔργα τὰ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, 2 Pet. ii. 7 ἡ ἐν 
ἀσελγείᾳ ἀναστροφή, 18 ἡ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τρυφή. The combination of ἐν 
with the Neuter of the Relative, ἐν ᾧ, is used as a Conjunction (in 
classic authors also, see Pape’s Lex. I. 720, and cf. ἐξ ot, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, etc.), 
sometimes in a temporal sense (Mark ii. 19; John v. 7, etc.), some- 
times in a tropical, guatenus, quapropter, on the ground of this, that, 283 
see Fritzsche on Rom. viii. 3; Liinem. on Heb. ii. 18; vi. 17. As 
a brachylogical peculiarity we may notice, further, Rom. xi. 2 
ἐν Ἡλίᾳ i.e. in the history of Elijah; cf. ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου in 23 p. 336 
and other parallel modes of expression in deWette’s Introd. to the 
O. T. § 78. 

Remark. The extremely surprising combination ([given by codd. 
SAB and] adopted by Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.]) in Acts xxvi. 20 τοῖς ἐν 
Δαμασκῷ καὶ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις πᾶσάν τε τὴν χώραν τῆς Ἰουδαίας 
could only be explained by the ellipsis of some such Participle as 
ἐνοικοῦσιν ; but for this quite unusual ellipsis no analogous example is 
found, since no such Part. can be supplied here, as in Rey. xii. 12 
Lehm. (see ὃ 131, 14 p. 154), from what precedes. Hence Tdf. [eds. 
2, 7] has retained the reading εἰς πᾶσάν τε, (which, indeed, is also not 
songruous, and looks like an emendation made in the interests of 
srammar). 

ΣΎΝ, like cum in Latin (or sammé in Germ. [Eng. together 13 
with|), is often used instead of cai; as, Mark iv. 10 ἠρώτων 
αὐτὸν οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν σὺν τοῖς δώδεκα τὰς παραβολάς, ix. 4; Viii. 
34; Luke xxiii. 11; Acts iii. 4; x. 2; xxiii. 15; 1 Cor. xvi. 
19; Eph. iii. 18, ete. 

Yet this phrase is no Latinism, at least the constructio ad synesin 
customary in Latin authors (i.e. the use of the Plural with a preceding 
or following Singular) is not found in connection with it. 

Peculiar is the meaning besides, ad (i.e. super), in Luke xxiv. 21 
σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει; Vulg. super hee omnia, 
deWette bet alle dem. 


PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 
ANA, a preposition used but rarely in the N.T.,is employed 14 
most commonly 
1) In distributive adjuncts; in which connection we may 


notice, that according to p. 80 it is treated as an adverbial addition, 
for example before the subject, ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος Rev. xxi. 21, or before 


15 


339 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. [8 147 


the object, Matt. xx. 9 ἔλαβον ἀνὰ δηνάριον, John ii. 6 ὑδρίαι χωροῦσαι 
ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς, Rev. iv. 8 ἔχον ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, cf. Protey. 
Jac. 7.2; 8.3; and 2) in the phrase ἀνὰ μέσον throughout, as Matt. 
xiii. 25; Mark vii. 31, in the midst of Rev. vii. 17, and simply ¢nter, 
between, 1 Cor. vi. 5 διακρῖναι ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ where the 
abridged form of expression (the use of the Singular with the omission 
of the second party to the controversy) is noticeable. 

ΕΙΣ. The custom of connecting εἰς immediately with - 
verbs of rest has already been spoken of under év (9 p. 328). 
The rudiments of this brachylogical form of expression are 
to be found in the popular language of all ages, and this idiom 
has its analogies in all languages; cf. the examples in B. 


286 under eis p. 414 (480). Yet since the N. T. writers have 


16 


made a far more extended use of this liberty than is made 
in the ordinary literary language, it is necessary to specify 
here in detail the various species of construction, so far as the 
examples given in the N. T. extend. 

a) The expression with εἰς arose from its being attracted 
by a verb of motion, present in the sentence, to which it in 
part also belongs. 

We are the more justified in explaining the extant instances in this 
way (by the σχῆμα ἀπὸ κοινοῦ), agreeing as it does perfectly with the 
classic literary usage, as they are almost all from the writings of Luke: 
xxi. 87 ἐξερχόμενος ηὐλίζετο εἰς τὸ ὄρος, Acts ii. 39 ὑμῖν yap ἐστιν 
ἡ ἐπαγγελία... καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακράν, ὅσους ἂν etc., vii. 12 
ἀκούσας ὄντα σιτία εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἐξαπέστειλεν τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν, 
Matt. iv. 13; ii, 28 ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν Ναζ., similarly Acts 
vii. 4. Hence the same mode of explanation is with reason to be 
applied also to Luke ix. 61 ἐπίτρεψόν μοι ἀποτάξασθαι τοῖς εἰς τὸν οἶκόν 
μου (see Meyer), and in Acts xii. 19 εἰς τὴν Καισάρειαν is to be referred 
not merely to κατελθών but also to διέτριβεν. 

b) Or it follows a verb of rest in which the (previous) idea 
of motion is still contained, as the idea to place one’s 
self is in στῆναι, and in καθίζειν καθῆσθαι that of seating 
one’s self, etc. (This case likewise is not uncommon in 
Greek authors). 

For example, Mark xiv. 60 ἀναστὰς ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς μέσον ἐπηρώτησεν, 
Luke vi. 8 στῆθι εἰς τὸ μέσον, John xx. 19, 26; xxi. 4 ἔστη εἷς τὸ 
αἰγιαλόν, 1 Pet. v. 12; Mark xiii. 8 καθημένου εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν, 
2 Thess. ii. 4. Analogous are Acts xx. 14 συνέβαλεν ἡμῖν εἰς τὴν 


᾿Άσσον, Heb. xi. 9 ᾿Αβραὰμ παρῴκησεν εἰς γῆν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ; cf. Acts 


vil. 4. 


8147. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 833 


6) Or it is used with the verbs εἶναι and γένεσθαι. if 
The ideas of these verbs, being wholly general, and therefore 
easily definable, acquire by being connected with eis the force 
of equally general verbs of motion (to come, go); (cf. from 
earlier authors Herod. 1. 21; 5. 38; Thuc. 6. 62, etc.). 


Examples of γίνεσθαι are Luke i. 44 ὡς ἐγένετο ἣ φωνὴ eis τὰ ὦτά 
pov, Acts xx. 16; xxv. 15; Gal. iii. 14, — which require no further 
explanation. More characteristic, on the other hand, are the ex- 
amples with εἶναι, Luke xi. 7 εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν (popularly, are to— 
Germ. zu — bed i.e. gone), Mark ii. 1 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] ἠκούσθη ὅτι εἰς 
οἶκόν ἐστιν (Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.] ἐν οἴκῳ), John i. 18 6 ὧν εἰς 
τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, 1 John v. 8 of τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν, cf. John xvii. 
23; Acts vill. 23 εἰς γὰρ χολὴν πικρίας... ὁρῶ σε ὄντα, Col. i. 6 τοῦ 
εὐαγγελίου τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὑμᾶς. Whether Luke iv. 28 ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν 
γενόμενα εἰς τὴν Καφαρναοὺμ, ποίησον καὶ ὧδε ἐν τῇ πατρίδι also belongs 
here may be doubtful, since if we translate it in Capernaum, the idea 
of motion (even antecedent) is excluded. Hence Meyer thinks that 
εἰς here has the tropical sense of on (unto). Yet the other inter- 
pretation is more natural, and corresponds better with the second 
clause. Cf. the examples in the following paragraph. 


d) But there still remains a number of instances which can 18 
not without violence be adjusted to any of the above rules. 287 
Hence we are compelled here either to supply a missing 
idea of motion, or (as in the majority of cases is doubtless 
more probable) to recognize (as above in the case of év) a 
more negligent use of eis, and consequently the beginnings 
of the subsequent obliteration of the distinction between the 
two prepositions. (Hence we find countless passages with εἰς 
where complete rest is expressed in the Apocrypha of the N. T.) 


For examples of this from later writers, see Jacobs ad Anth. Pal. 
p. 49 (10), 712; Stephanus sub εἰς (p. 292 sq.) ; Protev. Jac. 4. 4; 
5.1; Thom. 11.1; Nicod. 15.1, 4; Herm. Vis. 4. 3; and the litera- 
ture on the whole subject as referred to in Winer p. 418 (389). 
Further, notice from the N. T., Acts viii. 40 εὑρέθη εἰς ΓΑ ζωτον sc. ἐλθών 
or γενόμενος, Mark i. 39 ἦν κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν εἰς ὅλην 
τὴν TaX. where an unforced interpretation, particularly of the second 
eis, hardly permits us to take it otherwise than as equivalent to ἐν ὅλῃ 
τῇ Tad., xiii. 9 παραδώσουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς συνέδρια καὶ εἰς συναγωγὰς δαρήσεσθε 
where in view of the parallel passage and to avoid asyndeton we 
should not with Lchm. ['Treg.] and Meyer put a comma after cvvaywyds, 
Acts ii. 27, 81 ἐγκατελείφθη εἰς adov (ἄδην Taf. [δὲξ, so 8; but Lchm. 


984 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GEN. AND ACC. [8147 


Treg. only in 27] see ὃ 192, 27 p. 171), xix. 22 ἐπέσχεν χρόνον εἶς 
᾿Ασώαν, xxi. 18 δεθῆναι καὶ ἀποθανεῖν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ, ἑτοίμως ἔχω, xxiii. 1] 
διαμαρτύρασθαι εἰς ἹἹερουσαλήμ, εἰς Ῥώμην, xxv. 4 τηρεῖσθαι τὸν Παῦλον 
εἰς Καισάρειαν, Mark i. 9 ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν ᾿Ιορδάνην (in the Jordan) : 
and its use in connection with the simple article, Mark xiii. 16 6 εἰς 
τὸν ἀγρόν hardly different from Matt. xxiv. 18 ὁ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ; also in 
Mark x. 10 the reading εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν is now restored as the only 
correct one in place of ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ. Cf. also the examples given above 
in 8 p. 327 sq. 

In the passages where εἰς has a tropical, metaphysical, sense, since 
in them the idea of rest or of motion is at the most only secondary, it 
must be left to the interpreter to decide which meaning is best suited 
to the context in every particular case. But in general the notion 
of aim (corresponding to that of motion) is in such instances by far 
the prevalent one; cf. Winer 416 (388). 

Remark. On the circumlocution for the predicate Accusative 
with verbs signifying to make to be, to elect, by means of εἰς and the 
Acc., and on the corresponding (Old Testament) use of εἰς with εἶναι 
and γίνεσθαι, see ὃ 131, 7 p. 150; on the circumlocution for the 
Dative by means of εἰς, see ὃ 133, (3 p. 172). Adverbial ex- 
pressions, as εἰς Ta ἄμετρα, εἰς TO κενόν, εἰς περισσείαν, ὑπερβολήν, etC., are 
formed like those given in B. p. 414 (480) and to be explained in the 
same way. 


PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE AND ACCUSATIVE. 


1 414. The N. T. use of this preposition, both when it is con- 
nected with the Gen. and with the Acc., presents no anomalies. 
Even when according to our ideas it seems to express other 
relations, the interpreter will invariably bring to light a sense 
suited to the context if he endeavors to trace back its sig- 
nification to the two fundamental ideas (through and on 
account of ). 

.288 Τὸ the adverbial phrases given in the Gramm. (B. p. 414; H. 8 629 
fin.; 1). § 478 fin.; J. § 627, 3f.) may be added from the N. T. δὲ 
ὑπομονῆς, διὸ λόγου, διὰ προσκόμματος, διὰ βραχέων, δι᾿’ ὀλίγων, διὰ πολλῶν, 
du ὅλου, ete. 

ὃ KATA. In respect to this preposition also, only a few trivial 
peculiarities deserve to be noticed. 


Peculiar to Luke is the local signification of κατὰ with the Gen. 
throughout ; but always in connection with the Adject. ὅλος, so that in 
this way the relation is designated which the Greeks render by ἀνά 
and the Acc., as καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς περιχώρου Luke iv. 14, καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς 


§147.] . PREPOSITIONS ΤΠ ALL THREE CASES. 335 


Ἰουδαίας xxiii. 5; Acts ix. 31, καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς Ἰόππης 42; x. 37. Ina 
tropical sense hostile direction is by far its most common force; 
hence in Gal. v. 17 ἐπιθυμεῖν κατά twos is not a mere periphrasis for 
the Gen. On ὀμνύειν, ἐξορκίζειν, κατά twos see ὃ 131, 1 p. 147. An 
isolated use of κατά and the Gen. is its use as a periphrasis for an 
adjectival notion, as 2 Cor. viii. 2 ἡ κατὰ βάθους πτωχεία deep pov- 
erty, with which has been compared Strabo 9.5 ἐστὶ τὸ μαντεῖον ἄντρον 
κοῖλον κατὰ βάθους. On the periphrases for the Genitive, the 
Possess. Pron., and also an attributive Adject. with a substantive, by 
means of κατά and the Accusative (ἡ κατὰ θεὸν λύπη, of κατὰ φύσιν 
κλάδοι), see ὃ 182, 2 p. 156 and 10 Rem. p. 162. On κατά with 
distributive adjuncts see p. 30; and here again, as above with 
dvd, it is to be noticed that the expression formed in this way with 
κατά. is joined to the verb as object, Acts xxi. 19 ἐξηγεῖτο καθ᾽ ἕν 
ἕκαστον. 

ὙΠΕΡ and the Genitive is often used by Paul (after the 21 
fashion of later writers, see B. p. 415; Η. § 633b.; Ὁ. § 480; 
J. § 630, 2) for περί and the Genitive. 

Thus with verba sentiendi etc., as 2 Thess. i. 4; Rom. ix. 27, etc., 
also in the sense of as respects, 2 Cor. viii. 23 εἴτε ὑπὲρ Τίτου, κοινωνὸς 
ἐμός, etc. In the mss. it is often interchanged with περί, as in 2 Cor. 
i. 8, etc. 

ὑπέρ with the Acc. is used in later writers, (as παρά is in 
the earlier classics), after Comparatives and similar verbal 
ideas to designate the object surpassed. : 

Just so in the N. T.; as, Luke xvi. 8 φρονιμώτεροι ὑπὲρ τοὺς υἱοὺς 
τοῦ φωτός, Heb. iv. 12 τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν, Gal. i. 14 προέ- 
κοπτον ὑπὲρ πολλούς, 2 Cor. xii. 18 ἡσσώθητε ὑπὲρ τὰς λοιπὰς ἐκκλησίας. 
Hence it imparts, just as παρά does, to the preceding predicate a 
comparative force by simple juxtaposition: Matt. x. 24 οὐκ ἔστιν pa- 
θητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον more than his master, x. 87; Acts xxvi. 
13; Phil. ii. 9 ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν dvoua. On the adverbial ὑπέρ in 
ὑπὲρ ἐγώ and other combinations see ὃ 146, 4 p. 321. 


PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THREE CASES. 

"AM@I and ΠΕΡῚ. Of these two prepositions the first is 22 
not found in the N. T. There is no example also of περί with 
the Dative, the local reference of this combination being 
transferred completely to the construction with περί and the 
Accusative. 

On the periphrasis of περί τινα see ὃ 125, 8 p. 95. Περί and the 289 
Gen. is employed, as in ordinary Greek usage, only in a tropical 


836 PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THREE CASES. [§ 147 


reference (de), and hence in Acts xxv. 18 zepi ob does not belong to 
σταθέντες but to ἔφερον. Sometimes it stands in the sense of ὑπέρ for 
(as, on the other hand, ὑπέρ is used for περί, see ὑπέρ p. 335): Matt. 
xxvi. 28; Gal. i. 4; Heb. v. 3. 

*EIII is in use in the N. T. in almost all the manifold shades 
of signification which it has in Greek authors. We select the 
following as peculiarities : 

ἐπί with the Genitive. The signification in presence of, 
coram (B. p. 416), springs from the original notion of ap- 
proximation, of being in immediate proximity (on, upon, 
near by); and in a temporal reference the signification ¢m- 
mediately in, at or during, corresponds precisely to this local 
signification. 

Both meanings may often be pointed out in the N. T.: a) of 
place, Mark xiii. 9 ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνων καὶ βασιλέων σταθήσεσθε, Matt. 
xxviii. 14 Tdf. [cod. Sin.] ἐὰν ἀκουσθῇ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος coram 
procuratore, like Acts xxiii. 830 λέγειν ἐπὶ σοῦ, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 1, 6; 
1 Tim. v. 19; vi. 18, etc., hence ἡ καύχησις ὑμῶν ἡ ἐπὶ Τίτου (2 Cor. 
vii. 14) my encomiums of you uttered be fore Titus ; b) of time, 
Matt. i. 11 ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος, Rom. i.10 ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν 
μου δεόμενος, Eph. i. 16; Philem. 4, and in this way is explained most 
simply the brachylogical expression οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ... ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου 
(Mark xii. 26) or Μωυσῆς ἐμήνυσεν ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου (Luke xx. 37), very 
much as we say αὐ i.e. in the occurrence at the bush; cf. ἐν Ἡλίᾳ in 
12 above, p. 331. . 

Moreover, under the tropical meanings it is to be noticed also that 
λέγειν etc. ἐπί τινος is not synonymous with περί τινος, but in accordance 
with the primary sense of ἐπί can only mean, what is said concerns, 
is aimed at, has reference to, etc., as Gal. iii. 16 οὐ λέγει: Kal τοῖς 
σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἑνός - Kal τῷ σπέρματι etc. In 
Acts xxi. 23 εὐχὴν ἔχοντες ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν means literally having a vow 
upon themselves. Among the adverbial expressions we may notice 
the pretty common ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας in truth, actually, truly, as Mark xii. 
14, 82; Luke iv. 25; Acts iv. 27, ete., for which in Matt. xxii. 16 ἐν 
ἀληθείᾳ is used (differently in John iv. 23 sq., xvii. 19; 3 John 3, 
etc.). 

ἐπί With the Dative. The signification on, wpon, unusual in 
good prose (for which ἐπέ with the Gen. is used), is found in 
the N. T. pretty frequently ; and that 

a) With ideas of rest, as Matt. xiv. 8 δός μοι ἐπὶ πίνακι τὴν κεφαλὴν 
Ἰωάννου, Mark ii. 4 Tdf. [ed. 7], vi. 89, 55; John xi. 88; with both 
cases at the same time, Acts xxvii. 44 ods μὲν ἐπὶ σανίσιν, ods δὲ ἐπί 


§147.] PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THREE CASES. 337 


τινων etc. To this is to be referred in a tropical sense the meaning 290 
on the ground of ; for similar to the sentences ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἶκο- 
δομήσω τὴν ἐκκλησίαν (Matt. xvi. 18), ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ 
(Eph. ii. 20), are Heb. viii. 6 ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται 
(cf. vii. 11), Eph. ii. 10 κτισθέντες ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς, Phil. ii. 17 εἰ καὶ 
σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ etc., further, the common phrases 
ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι, λαλεῖν, διδάσκειν, δέχεσθαί τινα ἐπί τῷ ὀνόματί τινος (Acts iv. 
17; v. 28; Matt. xviii. 5, etc.) on the ground of hope, the name, etc., 
ζῇν ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ and many other verbal combinations, see ὃ 133 pp. 174 sqq. 

b) With ideas of motion, as Acts viii. 16 (τὸ πνεῦμα) ἦν ἐπ᾽ οὐδενὶ 
αὐτῶν ἐπιπεπτωκός, particularly again in the tropical sense, so that then 
it is often to be rendered by towards (adversus and erga), for, or 
generally with regard to, as Luke xii. 52 διαμεμερισμένοι τρεῖς ἐπὶ δυσὶν 
καὶ δύο ἐπὶ τρισίν ; so in the following verse, and in fact alternating 
with ἐπί and the Acc., John xii. 16 ταῦτα ἦν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ γεγραμμένα, Acts 
xxi. 24 δαπάνησον ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς, Rom. x. 19 (quotn.), 2 Cor. ix. 14 χάριν 
τοῦ θεοῦ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν, Gal. v. 13 ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε, Rev. x. 11. 

With ἐπί and the Dat. also many brachylogical phrases are 
found, as Acts v. 35 προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις τί 
μέλλετε πράσσειν not beware of these men (see ἀπό and ἐκ), but take 
heed to yourselves in your treatment of these men, so that thus it belongs 
just as well to the main predicate προσέχετε as to the predicate of the 
subordinate clause πράσσειν, see ὃ 151,16 p. 388; Mark vi. 52 οὐ 
συνῆκαν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις as if, they remained hardened at the loaves i.e. 
they did not understand the occurrence with the loaves. 


ἐπί with the Acc. designates as usual a movement wpon or % 
tendency towards something, in a local and a figurative refer- 
ence. But as ἐπί with the Dat. is used with verbs of motion, 
so, on the other hand, ἐπέ with the Acc. often stands in a 
relation of rest, and that too as well in a local as in a tropical 
view. Hence the frequent fluctuation in the text of the mss. 
between the two cases— more frequent than with almost any 
other preposition; hence the double construction of many 
verbs, e.g. those expressing an emotion, further of πιστεύειν, 
πεποιθέναι, ἐλπίζειν, etc., with ἐπί τινι and ἐπίτινα 88 131-133 ; 
hence, finally, one and the same writer often employs in the 
same circumstances both constructions without a perceptible 


1 Here too the style of Luke approximates to classic usage, in that he is decid- 
edly averse to the construction with the Dative in this (outward) signification. 
Hence in Acts ix. 33 ἐπὶ κραβάττου is now read again [so cod. Sin.], in Luke v. 
25 Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.] ἐφ᾽ ὃ κατέκειτο (see No. 25), and also in Acts vii. 33 
authorities differ [Lchm. Tdf. Treg. cod. Sin. ἐφ᾽ ¢]. On the other hand, Luke 
xix. 44; xxi. 6; xxiii. 38; Acts iii. 10, 11 fall under a different head. 

43 


338 PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THREE VASES. [8147 


difference, even close together (see Luke xii. 53 in 24 p. 337). 
Compare with this the similar observations in reference to the 
loose employment of both cases under παρά and πρός p. 839 sq., 
as well as the free use of the two prep. ἐν and εἰς p. 328 sqq. 


Examples of ἐπί with the Acc. in a relation of rest are found 
everywhere Under the signification (moving) over may be brought 
also, Matt. xiv. 29 περιπατῆσαι ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα, Mark xv. 88 σκότος ἐγένετο 
ἐφ᾽ ὅλην τὴν γῆν, Rev. xiv. 6 εὐαγγελίσαι ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔθνος etc.; in other 
instances, as in the case of εἰς, the idea of antecedent motion is included 

291 in the verb, as ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας αὐτῶν, επὶ τὴν θύραν Rev. iii. 20; 
xi. 11; Acts x.17, καθίζειν and καθῆσθαι ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον, τὸν πυλῶνα, etc. 
Matt. ix. 9: Mark ii. 14; xi. 2; Luke v. 27; John xii. 15; Rev. iv. 
4, etc. (hence ἀνέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος John xxi. 20 lay on the breast) ; 
but there still remain many passages where the idea of motion must 
be supplied outright, or that of rest predominates (cf. eis p. 333), as 
Matt. xviii. 12 ἀφήσει (τὰ πρόβατα) ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη (not, up on the moun- 
tains —implying motion, but leaveth them upon or at the mountains), 
Mark iv. 38 ἦν καθεύδων ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον, John i. 32, 33; iii. 36 
μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, Actsiv. 22; 1 Pet. iv. 14 τὸ πνεῦμα ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται, 
Rev. iv. 4 στεφάνους ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλάς, v. 1; vii. 15; χχ. 1, ete. To 
these may be added also the Accus. in the additive relation, as 
λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον Matt. xxiv. 2, λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην Phil. ii. 27, also Luke 
xi. 17 οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον πίπτει 1.6. house after house falls, in this case 
elsewhere the Dative is used, as Mark xiii. 2 (many mss. [so Sin., 
followed by Treg. Tdf.] read here also ἐπὶ λίθον) ; and the formula 
ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ together, as well with words implying motion as with those 
of rest, Luke xvii. 85; Acts ii. 1, ete. This last term, however, has 
become completely an indeclinable adverb, like many other adverbial 
expressions with ἐπί, as ἐπὶ τρίς, ἐφ᾽ ἱκανόν, ἐπὶ χρόνον, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον, ἐπὶ 
πλεῖον and the like. 

Further, we may notice as a peculiarity the construction of the 
Gen. and the Acc. after ἐπί connected together in a single sentence, 
Rev. xiii. 16; xiv. 9 ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου αὐτοῦ ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ. 

Remark. The quotation in Acts xv. 17 ἐφ᾽ ods ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά 
μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς arose from a verbatim translation of the Hebrew 
(ΟΣ ‘avi xP), literally my name ts called upon ti em, i.e. they are 
called after my name. 

2% META. The signification and use of this preposition agree 
in all points with ordinary Greek usage; except that the N. T. 
writers like to periphrase, in a brachylogical way by means of 
μετά and the Gen., attributive limitations which otherwise 
were commonly expressed by means of adjectives or participles. 


§147,] PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THREE CASES. 339 


~ For example: ἦλθεν μετὰ δυνάμεως clothed with might, περιβλέπω per 
ὀργῆς angry, μετὰ αἰσχύνης ἄρξῃ etc. (equiv. to αἰσχυνόμενος). In a 
similar way μετά with the Acc. is used brachylogically: John xiii. 27 
μετὰ τὸ ψωμίον, τότε εἰσῆλθεν etc. after the morsel. On the peri- 
phrasis with μετά for the Dative with verbs of association etc., see 
Ὁ 177. 


ΠΑΡΑ. Since the Dative designates in general approx- 27 

imation, when παρά and the Dat. are construed with verbs 

of motion the construction is not so much perfectly grammatical 

in itself considered, as in harmony particularly with what was 
said above under ἐν and ἐπί. It is wrong, therefore, to remove 
by emendation (whether with or without ms. authority) such 
instances even from classic writers (especially the later), see 
e.g. Xen. An. 2,5, 27; Plut. Them. 5; Dio C. p. 15, 97 R. 
The general usus loquendi, that is to say of the literary 
language, was established, to be sure, upon the idea that rest 

is associated with παρά and the Dative; but relics of the less 
exact mode of expression continue to come to light here and 292 
there. 


In the N. T., the Dative with παρά in Luke xix. 7 παρὰ ἁμαρτωλῷ 
ἀνδρὶ εἰσῆλθεν καταλῦσαι may perhaps be connected (by the σχῆμα ἀπὸ 
_ kowod) as well with εἰσῆλθεν as with καταλῦσαι (its position draws it 
to εἰσῆλθεν), and in ix. 47 ἔστησεν αὐτὸ παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ may be explained 
after the analogy of στῆσαι ἐν (see 9 p. 3829). But we should compare 
and connect with these instances the example under zpds below, and 
what was said above, p. 284, on Acts xxi. 16. That παρά with the 
Acc., however, is used to denote rest, is quite common in all writers, 
see B. p. 418. The three tropical senses of παρά with the Ace. 
there given are all to be found in the N. T.— the second (on account 
of ) but once it is true, viz. 1 Cor. xii. 15, 16, but so much the more 
frequent are the other two: beyond ( praeter) and more than. In this 
last sense the construction with παρά takes the place of the Gen. of 
comparison or 7 with the requisite case, not only after comparatives 
themselves (particularly in the Ep. to the Heb. for example i. 4; iii. 
3; ix. 23; xi. 4; xii. 24 cf. Luke iii. 13), or comparative ideas, as 
ἄλλος (1 Cor. iii. 11), ἐλαττοῦν (Heb. ii. 7, 9), ὑπερφρονεῖν (Rom. xii. 
3), but even when associated with the Positive it imparts to it the 
force of a comparative, as Luke xiii. 2, 4 ἁμαρτωλοὶ παρὰ πάντας, 
ὀφειλέται ἐγένοντο παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Cf. also the reading 
of cod. Vat. [and Sin. also] in Luke xviii. 14 Lchm. [Treg.], and the 
similar phenomena above in connection with ὑπέρ p. 335, and with 4 
§ 149, 7p. 360. 


28 


340 PREPOSITIONS WITH ALL THREE CASES. [8 147. 


ΠΡΟΣ with the Genitive is only once extant, and then 
used quite in classic style: Acts xxvii. 84 τοῦτο πρὸς τῆς 
ὑμετέρας σωτηρίας ὑπάρχει. 


Also πρὸς with the Dative is rare. But in Luke xix. 37 ἐγγίζοντος 
ἤδη πρὸς TH καταβάσει τοῦ ὄρους, ἐγγίζοντος does not mean when he 
was near, but as he came near (to) the mountain. Cf. παρά. 


πρός with the Acc. corresponds to all the manifold shades 
of signification given in the grammars; only, after the analogy 
of παρά with the Acc. (which see, p. 339), it is more frequently 
used than by classic writers to denote rest also, and without 
the accessory notion of aim. 


For example: Matt. xiii. 56 ai ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσίν, xxvi. 
18 πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα, Mark vi. 3; xiv. 49; John i. 1 ἦν πρὸς τὸν 
θεὸν, 1 John i. 2; Acts v. 10; xii. 20 ὁμοθυμαδὸν παρῆσαν πρὸς αὑτόν, 
1 Cor. ii. 3; xvi. 7 ἐλπίζω ἐπιμεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς (cf. ἐπί with the Ace. 
p. 338), 2 Cor. v. 8 (εὐδοκοῦμεν) ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν κύριον ete. (see 
Wahl p. 279). In view of such unquestionable passages, it is un- 
necessary to search in others after an idea of motion or of aim (whether 
expressed, or first to be supplied) if the simple notion of rest suffices., 
and the immediate connection of the preposition with that appears to 
be the most natural; see e.g. Rom. iv. 2; 2 Cor. 1. 12. 

An example of πρός ina Comparative clause (see παρά above, p. 
339) is Rom. viii. 18 τὰ παθήματα οὐκ ἄξια πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν, 
cf. Ignat. ad Magn. 12 πρὸς ἕνα ὑμῶν οὔκ εἰμ. Brachylogical and 
elliptical phrases, such as τί πρὸς σέ, ἁμαρτάνειν πρὸς θάνατον and 
the like, are easily explained by the vigorous force of the prep. 
Adverbial expressions, as in the Greek writers, are πρὸς φθόνον, 


293 πρὸς καιρόν, πρὸς pay (for the moment, for a short time) and others. 


29 


On the periphrasis with πρός τι for the Dative, see pp. 172, 177. 


‘YIIO is no longer construed with the Dative. In con- 
nection with the Genitive and Accusative, the following 
particulars may be selected as peculiar in its use: 


ὑπό with the Gen. is used with Passives not infrequently when a 
thing or an abstract notion is the efficient cause. In such cases, 
because the cause appears thus personified as it were, the expression 
is more forceful than the simple Dative, as Luke vii. 24 κάλαμον ὑπὸ 
ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον, Vili. 14 ὑπὸ μεριμνῶν ... συμπνίγονται, Rom. xii. 21 
μὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ, Matt. viii. 24 etc. (see Wahl). On Heb. vii. 7 
see ὃ 128, 1 p. 122. Neuter verbs which contain a Passive sense 
prefer the connection with ἐκ and ἀπό, see these prep. pp. 325 sq. 
Instances of ὑπό are found only with yéveo ax (which thus becomes a 


§ 147. ] POSITION OF PREPOSITIONS. 841 


complete Passive) —as Luke xiii. 17 ἔχαιρεν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
γινομένοις, Acts xx. 3, οἷο. --- and, agreeably to their significations, with 
πάσχειν (Matt. xvii. 12, ete.) and ὑπομένειν (Heb. xii. 3), once 
also with πληγὰς λαμβάνειν i.e. vapulare 2 Cor. xi. 24. As 
peculiar, we may notice the elliptical and brachylogical mode of ex- 
pression in 2 Cor. ii. 6 ἡ ἐπιτιμία ἡ ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων Where the missing 
Passive notion is to be derived from ἐπιτιμία, and in Rev. vi. 8 ἀπο- 
κτεῖναι ὑπὸ τῶν θηρίων τῆς γῆς i.e. Jubere (aliquem) interfici a bestiis 
(with which has been compared προαγορεύειν ὑπὸ κήρυκος in Herod. 9. 
98, see Wesseling). The second class of cases, also, described in 
the Gram., viz. where ὑπό is used with Actives, an abstract idea being 
subjoined as the moving cause of the action (e.g. from fear, for shame), 
are rendered in the N. T. not by ὑπό, but by ἀπό again and ἐκ ; see pp. 
325 sq. Whether in Rom. xiii. 1 οὐκ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ se. 
δεδομένη (Lehm. [Treg. Tdf.]) or ἀπὸ θεοῦ (Tdf. [eds. 2, 77) is the 
original reading is hard to decide, as they are equally attested by mss. 
[Sin. ὑπό], and both may be defended philologically. With the 
Accusative, ὑπό responds to the question where (taking the place 
of the missing construction with the Dative) more frequently almost 
than to the question whither (cf. the classic usage), particularly with 
εἶναι and γωεσθαι, ἴ in a local and a atepital reference: under ; as, John 
i. 49 ὄντα ὑπὸ τῆν συκῆν, Matt. viii. 9 ἔχων tr ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, 


1 Cor. x. 1; Gal. iii. 25; Rom. iii. 9; vi. 14, ete. 





B. § 147, N. 2; J. ὃ 650; W. p. 419sq. (891sq.); 5. p. Lxxxiv sq. 

When two or more substantives connected together 30 
by conjunctions depend on the same preposition, the 
preposition is sometimes repeated, sometimes written but once. 

As aruling principle in such cases, the following may be laid 
down: by omitting to repeat the preposition, the writer gives 

an intimation that he regards the members rather as homo- 
geneous, belonging together, or united into one whole; by 
repeating it, that he wants to have them taken as independent, 294 
of a dissimilar or even contrary nature. 

From this principle it follows, 1) that the prep. must always 
be repeated in the adversative relation (ἀλλά, δέ, οὐ), and likewise 
in the disjunctive (%, οὐ μόνον... ἀλλὰ καί, οὔτε... οὔτε, etc.) if 
the members are antithetic and after comparatives ; as, John vii. 22 
οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ Μωυσέως ἐστὶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν πατέρων, Acts viii. 34 (λέγει) περὶ 
ἑαυτοῦ ἢ περὶ ἑτέρου τινός ; Col. iii. 17 ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῳ, Eph. i. 21 οὐ 


342 POSITION OF PREPOSITIONS. [§ 147. 


μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι, cf. Luke xx. 4; 
1 Thess. i. 8; ii. 6; Rom. iv. 10; v. 1£; 1 Cor. iv. 8, 21; Gal. iii. 2, 
5; Acts xxv. 8, etc. On the other hand, 2) if the members in 
the disjunctive relation are similar, or if they stand in the cop- 
ulative relation and so are united by καί (τε, τε καί, καί... kai), 
the preposition is either repeated or not, according as the members 
either are to be regarded rather as independent and separate, or are 
united into one whole, into a single composite expression. For ex- 
ample: with 7, the preposition repeated, Acts iv. 7 ἐν ποίᾳ δυνάμει ἢ 
ἐν ποίῳ ὀνόματι ἐποιήσατε τοῦτο, 1 Cor. xiv. 6 λαλήσω ἢ ἐν ἀποκαλύψει 
ἢ ἐν γνώσει ἢ ἐν προφητείᾳ ἢ ἐν διδαχῇ, John vii. 48 ; 2 Cor. ix. 7, ete. ; 
with ἤ, the preposition not repeated, Heb. x. 28 ἐπὶ δυσὶν ἢ τρισὶν 
μάρτυσιν, Mark xiii. 32 περὶ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, 
1 Tim. v. 19; ii. 9; 1 Ῥρί. 1. 11, ete.; with καί etc. the preposition 
repeated, Mark vi. 4 (ἄτιμος) ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγενέσιν 
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ, Luke xxii. 33 καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν καὶ εἰς θάνατον 
πορεύεσθαι, Mark ix. 22 καὶ εἰς πῦρ ἔβαλεν καὶ εἰς ὕδατα, 1 Cor. ii. 3 ἐν 
ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἐν τρόμῳ, Acts xxvi. 4 ἐν τῷ ἔθνει μου ἔν τε 
Ἱεροσολύμοις, 1 Thess. i. 5, οἴο.; with καί etc. the preposition not 
repeated, very common, Mark xiv. 43 παραγίνεται ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν 
καὶ ξύλων παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ TOV γραμματέων Kal τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, 
Acts i. 8 ἔν τε Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ πάσῃ τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ, x. 39; vi. 9; xiv. 21, 
ete.; Phil. iv. ὃ μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν συνεργῶν pov. Both 
constructions are united in Phil. i. 7 ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου καὶ ἐν τῇ 
ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, where, therefore, the last two 
members constitute one whole, etc. In general, in this second class 
of cases (1.6. where the members are homogeneous and the relation 
copulative) no absolutely fixed rule can be laid down, since 
the repetition or non-repetition of the prep. rested solely in the 
writer’s choice and way of looking at the subject, —is often more a 
matter of feeling and rhetorical accent than of logical discrimination ; 
and hence often in precisely the same cases the preposition is found 
repeated and not repeated; cf. e.g. Luke xxiv. 27 with Acts xxviii. 23; 
Matt. iv. 25 with Mark iii. 8, ete. This holds trie particularly, also, 
when the Relative depends on the same prep. as the corresponding 
Demonstrative, since even in Greek authors both constructions 
(with and without the repetition of the prep.) occur equally. For 
example: without repetition, Matt. xxiv. 50 ev ἡμέρᾳ 4 οὐ προσδοκᾷ, 
Luke i. 25; Acts xiii. 39 (see above 2 note p. 322), Acts xiii. 2 εἰς 
τὸ ἔργον ὃ προσκέκλημαι αὐτούς (where the construction spoken of 
§ 131,10 p. 152 may also have had influence); with repetition, 
John iv. 53 ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐν 7 εἶπεν [Tdf. om. first ἐν], Acts vii. 4; 
xx. 18 ἀπὸ πρώτης ἡμέρας ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐπέβην ete. 


§ 147.] POSITION OF PREPOSITIONS. 343 


B. $147, N. 8(Germ. ed.); H. § 616; J. § 651; S. p. lxxxiii. 

When upon a substantive governed by a prepos.tion a 
limiting Genitive also depends, there are two general 
classes of cases as respects the preposition’s position : 

a) In case the nouns have no article, it is a fixed rule 
that the preposition can never be separated by the limiting 
Genitive from its substantive, when this substantive (governed 
by the prep.) itself stands in the Genitive, even though 
the meaning excludes all possible ambiguity. 

Hence we always find, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου γῆς, πρὸ καταβολῆς 
κόσμου, ἐξ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως, ἀπ᾿ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου, διὰ τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος, διὰ 
λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας etc., and the pronouns gov, μου, αὐτοῦ, etc., which 
so often stand before their substantives, then follow them without 
exception; thus, ἀπ᾿ ὀφθαλμῶν cov, ἐκ νεότητός μου, ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ, 
διὰ and ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν, etc. From this unquestionable observation it 
follows, that, wherever the sense might be ambiguous, the grammatical 
rule alone must decide. Accordingly, 2 Cor. iii. 18 ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύ- 
paros can only mean from the Lord of the Spirit, and Matt. xxiv. 31 
μετὰ σάλπιγγος φωνῆς μεγάλης only, with a trumpet of loud sound (see 
§ 182,10 p. 161). In phrases where the prep. governs a different 
case from the Genitive, the limiting Gen. can indeed be inserted 
immediately after the prep., as Matt. xiii. 33 εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία, 
Rey. vii. 17 ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων where, however, it was necessary 
on other grounds also that ζωῆς should precede (see ὃ 132, 1, b) p. 155). 
Yet this arrangement is extremely rare (compare the —critically 
uncertain, too — elliptical combinations ev Αἰγύπτου, εἰς adov, in ὃ 182, 
27 p. 171), and writers had become already so wonted to the natural 
arrangement that even here they uniformly said, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, 
εἰς ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν, εἰς κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ, ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου, etc. On 
the hyperbaton πρὸ &€ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα and the like, see ὃ 131, 11 
Ρ. 153. 

b) But if the noun governed by the preposition has the 
article, when there are two Genitives, at least the article 
of this governed noun must stand directly after the prep., and 
the second Gen., dependent on this substantive, may be inserted 
according to the general rule; as, ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας, ἐκ 
τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος, διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως, διὰ τῆς ἑτέρων 
σπουδῆς, etc. 

Commonly, however, even this does not take place, but the nouns 
follow in succession, as ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν, 
μετὰ τῶν λαμπάδων ἑαυτῶν, ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν ἡμῶν, σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου, 


δ 


295 


3 


290 


99 


844 NEGATIVES. os [§ 148. 


ete. The pronouns pov and gov, which, as is well known, cannot 
be inserted between the article and substantive, stand accordingly, as 
a rule, likewise afterwa:ds (ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου, etc.) ; but they can 
sometimes, owing to their propensity to precede their substantive 
(8 127,19 p. 115), be placed quite at the beginning, i.e. even before 
the preposition, as Matt. viii. 8 ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς, 
John ix. 15 πηλὸν ἐπέθηκέν μου ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς (cf. vss. 6, 11, and 
§ 151, 14 p. 387); and so with αὐτοῦ, John xv. 10 αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ. 


B. § 147, N. 5; H. 8 615; ©. §§ 703b. 706; J. §§ 640. 644. 

Strictly speaking, no examples are found in the N. T. in which 
prepositions continue to be used adverbially; and all the instances . 
which might be reckoned under this head reduce themselves to (in 
part newly formed) compounds; see § 146, 4 p. 320. 


B. § 147, N.9; H. §§ 688, 605; C. § 699; J. § 641; W. p. 425 sq. (869 sq.). 

That prepositions which by themselves govern the Genitive or the 
Dative, govern (especially ἐν, σύν, mpd) the same cases also when 
compounded with verbs, is a well-known fact ; see the lexicons 
under συνζῇν, συνελθεῖν, συνέπεσθαι, συνανακεῖσθαι, συνσταυροῦν, ἐντυγ- 
χάνειν, ἐμβλέπειν, ἐμβριμᾶσθαι, ἐμμένειν, ἐνέχειν, ἐμπαίζειν, ἐμπλέκειν, 
ἐκπίπτειν, ἐκτινάσσειν, προστῆναι, προπορεύεσθαι, etc. With other verbs 
the repetition of the preposition (or of a synonymous one) prevails, 
especially with verbs compounded with ἀπό and ἐκ, see under ἐμβάλ- 
New, ἐκβάλλειν, ἀπέχειν, ἀποστῆναι, ἀπαίρειν, ἐκπορεύεσθαι, ἀπαλλάσσειν, 
ἀπελαύνειν, ἀποκρύπτειν, ἀποπλανᾷν, προκηρύσσειν, ἐνευλογεῖσθαι, etc. 


NEGATIVES. 
B. § 148; H. § 882; C. § 686; Ὁ. § 528; J. § 789. 

In no respect, perhaps, has the language of the N. T. ad 
hered more closely to the usage established by the literary 
language, than in the employment of the two negatives οὐ and 
μή with their compounds; so that it proves to be easy to point 
out analogies in classic usage for the deviations even that 
occur. Hence, for the general principies in all their extent, 
we refer the reader to the specifications given in the Grammars, 
and here need make mention only of particular instances of 
somewhat rare and peculiar use. 


B. § 148, 2b) and note; H. $835; C. § 6861. 5ᾳ.; D. § 631; J. § 744,1; W. p. 4778q. (4458q.) 

The use of ov in the protasis of a conditional sentence 
occurs in the N. T. relatively very often; so that we are 
justified in inferring a difference in usage, since in classic 


§ 148.] NE. {ATIVES. 345 


writers this use is only exceptional. It is true, the attempt 
has been made to explain the individual instances all according 
to the analogy of those which occur in classic authors, and 
consequently to consent to recognize merely an extension in 
the N. T. of a usage elsewhere rare. This method of treatment 
may be applied, indeed, to a portion of the extant passages, 
but is decidedly inapplicable to many, and is especially opposed 
by the circumstance that whereas after εἰ the predicate is so 
often negatived by ov, this never occurs under the same 
conditions in clauses with ἐάν; (cf. e.g. Matt. vi. 15 with 
Mark xi. 26). The usage of the N. T., on the contrary, may 
be referred to the following simple and almost invariable 
principles : 

1) The first form of hypothesis (δ 139 A. pp. 220sq.), 1.6. 
εἰ with the Indicative as expressive of objective certainty, 
takes the direct negative ov. Exceptions are extremely 
rare: 1 Tim. vi. 3 εἴ tus ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ Kal μὴ προσέρχεται 
λόγοις ete. 

2) The second form of hypothesis (ἐάν with the Subjunctive), 
and the fourth (εἰ with a Preterite Indicative), require in- 
variably the dependent negative μή. (The third 
species of hypothesis, εἰ with the Optative, occurs in the N. T. 
only in a positive form.) On Matt. xxvi. 24 and Mark xiv. 21 
see 3) d. p. 347. 

3) The combination ἐκτὸς εἰ μή (see 13 p. 355) even 
when followed by the Indicative, the compound εἰ μή (used 
for the most part elliptically, i.e. without a predicate) in the 
signification except, nsi (see ὃ 149, 4 p. 359), after a preceding 
negative or interrogative clause, as well as the elliptical for- 
mulz εἰ δὲ μή, εἰ δὲ μή γε (§ 151, 23, 6) p. 393) are, like 
established conjunctions or adverbs, no longer capable of 
changing their outward form. 


Now since 2) and 3) admit of no exceptions and are perfectly gram- 
matical, it is only necessary here to establish the first class. We 
will so arrange the examples as first of all to exhibit those which 
stand in obvious analogy with those from classic authors treated of in 
B. l.c., and then procsed to those which .epart more or less from the 
ordinary usage. 


a) The predicate of the conditional clause negatived by οὐ 


is found in evident antithesis toa positive notion (com- 
44 


29 


346 NEGATIVES. [8 148 


monly the same, but sometimes synonymous), either in what 
precedes or in what follows (see B. § 148, 2. g). 

For example: in what precedes, Mark xi. 26 Lchm. ἀφίετε 
ἵνα etc. ... εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀφίετε, οὐδὲ ὃ πατὴρ ἀφήσει, John vy. 47 εἰ 
γὰρ ἐπιστεύετε etc. ... εἰ δὲ τοῖς ἐκείνου γράμμασιν οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς 
etc., Acts xxv. 11 εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀδικῶ... - εἰ δὲ οὐδέν ἐστιν ὧν οὗτοι κατη- 
γοροῦσίν μου. So in Rom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. νἱ]. 9; Jas. iii. 2; in what 
follows, 1 Cor. ix. 2 εἰ ἄλλοις οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος, ἀλλά ye ὑμῖν εἶμι, 
John x. 37 εἰ οὐ ποιῶ τὰ ἔργα ..., εἰ δὲ ποιῶ etc., Luke xi. 8 εἰ καὶ οὐ 
δώσει αὐτῷ ..., διά γε τὴν ἀναίδειαν αὐτοῦ δώσει αὐτῷ (cf. the similarly 
formed sentence in xviii. 4), 1 Cor. xi. 6 εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνή 
with reference to the following κατακαλυπτέσθω. 

In all the above passages the dependent negative would be in no- 
wise erroneous, and by the Greeks would perhaps have been preferred. 

298 More necessary, on the other hand, is the use of the negative οὐ even 
according to classic usage, when to the negatived predicate another, 
still in the protasis, is immediately so appended or contrasted with an 
adversative particle that the entire emphasis falls upon this second 
part (cf. 8 p. 852); as, Jas. 11. 11 εἰ δὲ οὐ μοιχεύεις, Povevers ὃ έ, 
2 Pet. ii. 4,5 εἰ yap ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ ... 
παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν ete. (cf. with this the example Il. xv. 162, B. p. 493 
Germ. ed.). 

b) For the same reason as in a) the negative οὐ may be 
grammatically defended also in the following pretty common 
class of sentences (though the Greeks, however, here also 
would have perhaps preferred for the most part the dependent 
negative): where a negative protasis is associated with em- 
phasis, or rather contrasted, with an apodosis likewise 
negatived (or negatively conceived). 

The plainest example of this is 1 Cor. xv. 13-17 εἰ ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν 
οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται" εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἐγήγερται, κενὸν 
ἄρα τὸ κήρυγμα ἡμῶν" ... Χριστὸν οὐκ ἤγειρεν, εἴπερ ἄρα νεκροὶ οὐκ 
ἐγείρονται " εἰ γὰρ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, οὐδὲ etc., Rom. xi. 21 εἰ... οὐκ 
ἐφείσατο, οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται, Luke xvi. 81 εἰ Μωυσέως ... οὐκ ἀκούουσιν, 
οὐδ᾽ ἐάν τις ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ πεισθήσονται, 2 Thess, iii. 10 εἴ τις οὐ θέλει 
ἐργάζεσθαι, μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω. See besides Heb. xii. 25, and, with the 
substitution of a question instead of a negation in the apodosis, Luke 
xvi. 11 sq. εἰ... οὐκ ἐγένεσθε, τὸ ἀληθινὸν τίς ὑμῖν πιστεύσει; καὶ εἰ etc., 
John iii. 12 εἰ οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς... πιστεύσετε; 1 Tim. iii. 5 εἴ τις... 

1 If vs. 26, which is wanting in several ancient mss. [Sin. also], was really first 


transferred (as is said) from Matt. vi. 15, then at least the alteration made ir 
the words of Matthew turns out to correspond perfectly with N. T. usage. 


8148. NEGATIVES. 9547 


οὐκ οἶδεν, πῶς ἐκκλησίας ἐπιμελήσεται ; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 29; xv. 32 (sub- 
stantially); and several of the passages quoted under a) may be 
brought under this head also, as Mark xi. 26; John v. 47; Acts xxv. 
11; Rom. viii. 9. 

c) Further, an endeavor has been made to bring a number 
of passages under the rule proposed by Hermann (ad Vig. 
Ρ. 831), according to which ov is said to stand in conditional 
clauses when it blends as it were with the negatived word into 
a single (positive) notion. Since, however, this view affords 
no satisfactory objective test, but, on the contrary, all con- 
ditional clauses in which the predicate is negatived may be 
brought with more or less ease under this category (e.g. ov 
φείδομαι equiv. to φθείρω. οὐκ ἀκούω equiv. to ἀν jKods εἰμι, οὐκ 
οἶδεν equiv. to ἀγνοεῖ, οὐ δύναται equiv. to ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν, etc. ), 
we can with tolerable confidence bring under this head only 
those passages in which a different part of the clause from the 
predicate is negatived, and consequently the predicate is 
evidently positive. . 

For example, 2 Cor. xii. 11 οὐδὲν torépyoa..., εἰ καὶ οὐδέν εἰμι, 
Jas. i. 23 εἴ τις ἀκροατὴς λόγου ἐστὶν καὶ οὐ ποιητής where only the 
notion ποιητής in antithesis to ἀκροατής is negatived (yet without 
constituting a single idea), and the predicate remains positive. But 
Luke xii. 26 εἰ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον δύνασθε, τί περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν μεριμνᾶτε 
does not belong under this head, since by οὐδέ the predicate is also 
negatived, so that the sentence belongs with the passages under b). 
The other passages, also, with a negatived predicate adduced under 
this head, we have already distributed under the first two more 
obvious rules; as, 1 Tim. iii. 5; Luke xvi. 31; Heb. xii. 25; 2 Pet. 
ii. 4; Jas. ii. 11. 

d) In justification of the direct negative, reference has 
also been made to the special emphasis with which the 
predicate alone is rendered prominent as negatived. This 
may be affirmed with reason of the two parallel passages Matt. 
xxvi. 24 and Mark xiv. 21 καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ, εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ 
ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος (where, moreover, the direct negation appears 
to find an adequate occasion in the evident approximation of 
the sentence to the first form of hypothesis, cf. § 159, 27 c) 
p. 225), and also of John i. 25 τί βαπτίζεις, εἰ σὺ οὐκ εἶ ὁ 
Χριστός (i i.e. since thou certainly art not etec.). 

Yet since the majority of such passages coincide with one of the 
objective characteristics propounded under a) and Ὁ), and accordingly 


299 


348 NEGATIVES. [8 148. 


have already been quoted there; further, since without such objective 
indications the interpreter is left to decide solely according to hia 
feelings whether he will recognize a special emphasis or not; and 
especially, since in the N. T. the direct negative makes its appearance 
in clauses with the Indicative almost without an exception 

΄ (ef. 4 below), the circumstance above mentioned is not of itself suited 
to constitute a separate class or rule, at least for the New 
Testament. 


e) Finally, the following additional examples are to be 
noticed as those which do not admit of being classed under 
any one of the above rules, and consequently belong to the 
characteristically free usage of the N. T., according to which 
conditional clauses of the first kind are uniformly 
negatived by οὐ: 

Luke xiv. 26 εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρός με Kal ov μισεῖ τὸν πατέρα... οὗ 
δύναται etc., 2 John 10 (cf. 1 Tim. vi. 3), 1 Cor. xvi. 22 εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ 
τὸν κύριον, ἥτω ἀνάθεμα, 2 Thess. iii. 14 εἴ τις οὐχ ὑπακούει τῷ λόγῳ .. 
τοῦτον σημειοῦσθε, 1 Tim. v. 8 εἴ τὶς τῶν ἰδίων οὐ προνοεῖ, τὴν πίστιν 
ἤρνηται, Rev. xx. 1ὅ εἴ τις οὐχ εὑρέθη ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ ... ἐβλήθη ete. 
Hardly would any classic writer have employed the direct negation 
in any of these passages, even on the assumption of a special emphasis 
in the negative. On the other hand, in Matt. xxvi. 42 οὐ is used 
more with reference to ἐὰν μή immediately following (with which the 
clauses with εἰ μή nisi after an antecedent οὐ are to be compared, see 
§ 149, 4 p. 359); and in John x. 35 the clause καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι 
ἡ γραφή is to be taken as independent and parenthetic. 


4 The use of the negative in Relative Sentences is quite 
like that in conditional sentences, as in general the former 
share in all essential particulars the nature and construction 
of the latter, (see B. § 139 B.). Accordingly, relative sen- 
tences in the Indicative, whether of a general nature or not, 
are almost exclusively negatived by ov, so that sentences 
with μή are extremely rare; on the other hand, relative 
sentences in the Subjunctive with ἄν (ἐάν) are without any 
exception negatived by μή. 


800 Examples with οὐ: Matt. xii.2; Markii. 24; Luke vi. 2 ποιοῦσιν 
ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ, Matt. x. 88 ὃς οὐ λαμβάνει τὸν σταυρὸν 
+++ οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος, Gal. iii. 10 (quotn.) πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει etc., and 
after ὅστις with the Indic. Luke xiv. 27; xv. 7, etc.; further, in 
antithesis (similar to the instances unfolded above in 3 a) and b)), as 
Matt. xili, 12; Mark iv. 25 ὃς ἔχει ... καὶ ὃς οὐχ ἔχει, Rom. vii. 15, 


§ 148.] NEGATIVES. . 349 


19 ὃ θέλω... ὃ οὐ θέλω, xv. 21 (quotn.) οἷς οὐκ ἀνηγγέλη, ὄψονται, οἷ 
οὐκ ἀκηκόασιν, συνήσουσιν, iv. 15 οὗ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος, οὐδὲ παράβασις. 
Cf. besides, in 12 below, p. 354, the sentences with two (mutually 
annulling) negatives in two clauses dependent on one another. 
Examples with μή and the Indicative (never in the historical 
writings), 2 Peti.9 @ yap μὴ πάρεστιν ταῦτα, τυφλός ἐστιν, Tit. i. 11 
διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ Set. On the μή in Col. ii. 18, critically very doubtful 
[wanting in ἐξ and omitted by Treg. Tdf.] (and in no wise necessary 
to the sense), see Meyer. Examples with μή and the Subjunctive 
are very common in all parts of the N. T. e.g. Matt. x. 14, etc.; also 
in antithesis, Luke viii. 18 cf. Matt. xiii. 12, etc. 

On the other hand, in all illative, causal, and declarative 
sentences, the language of the N.T. follows cloself¥ the ordinary 
Greek usage. 

Accordingly, after ὥστε with the Indicative οὐ is regularly used, 
Matt. xix. 6; Gal. iv. 7, ete., after ὥστε with the Infin. invariably μή 
(see 6) ; further, after ὅτι (because and that), καθότι, ἐπεί, ἐπειδή, etc., 
uniformly οὐ, Luke i. 84; 1 Cor. i. 21, etc. John iii. 18 ὅτι (because) 
μὴ πεπίστευκεν is to be regarded solely as a deviation from ordinary 
usage (hence instances of the sort are often to be found also in later 
writers, especially Lucian, see Herm. ad Vig. p. 806; Cobet, var. Lect. 
315 sq., and on the usage of Arrian and Lucian, Ellendt pref. ad Arr. 
Ρ. 24; Du Mesnil, Stolp. Progr. 1867 p. 43); and on Heb. ix. 17 
(ἐπεὶ μή ποτε ἰσχύει) see 10 p. 353. Also after ὅτι in the signification 
that, μή 18 sometimes used in later writers, e.g. App. B.C. 3, 96. 


Β. § 148,2d.; H. § 887; C. § 686c¢.; Ὁ. § 594 Obs.; J. § 745; W. p. 481 sq. (449). 

With the Infinitive, the N. T. writers are so in the habit 
of using the dependent negation, that they negative a state- 
ment by μή where the direct negation was not only admissible, 
but in Greek authors even more usual; so that, in point of 
fact, examples of ov with the Infinitive are hardly to be met 
with longer. 

Hence, in particular, μή stands (as in Greek authors) without ex- 
ception with an Infinitive introduced by the Article, Matt. xiii. 5; 
Rom. xiv. 13, 21, ete.; further, after ὥστε, Mark ii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 7, etc., 
no exception to which is established by Rom. vii. 6, since here only 
παλαιότητι in contrast with καινότητι is denied, and not the Infin. 
My stands also after verba dicen di, etc., so far forth as a preference, 
counsel, wish, command is contained in them, and after predicates 
like δεῖ, δοκεῖ μοι, καλόν ἐστιν, ἄλογόν ἐστιν, etc., as Matt. v. 34, 39; 
xxill. 23; Luke xxi, 14; xxii. 40; Acts 1. 4; xv. 28; 2 Pet. ii. 21; 


350 NEGATIVES. 3 1g 148. 


801 Eph.iv.17; Rom. 11, 21 ; xv. 1, ete.’ But also where the Infin. clause 
(after the verba dicendi, etc.) contains only a declaration, and the 
Greeks use, at least in part, the negative od, we always find py; as, 
Luke xx. 7 ἀπεκρίθησαν μὴ εἰδέναι etc., Matt. xxii. 23; Mark xii. 18; 
Luke ii. 26; Acts xxiii. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 5. 

Remark. In cases of accumulated (intensified) negation, the main 
rule (B. § 148, 6, ef. 11 below p. 354) requires the same kind of 
negative to be used with the Infin. as with the predicate, — consequently 
οὖ; as, Luke xx. 40 οὐκέτι ἐτόλμων ἐπερωτᾷν οὐ δέν, John iii. 27 οὐ 
δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμβάνειν οὐδέν, v. 19, 30; Rev. v. 4, ete. 


Β. § 148 e (f); H. 8 889 C. §686(d); Ὁ. p. 554; J. ὃ 746; W. p. 482sqq. (450 sqq.). 

i With Participles (as in Greek authors and under the 
same conditions as there) both kinds of negation occur; only 
in circumstances where either is admissible (see b below), the 
disposition to employ μή etc. is incomparably stronger. 

a) If the Participle has the Article (cf. the Infin.), it is 
regularly negatived by μή ; thus, 6 μὴ ὧν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, τοῖς μὴ 
πεπλανημένοις: οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες, etc. 

Only those cases are exceptions where antithesis occurs, as Rom. 
ix. 25 (quotn.) τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην, 1 Pet. ii. 10 οἱ οὐκ 
ἠλεημένοι, viv δὲ ἐλεηθέντες, Gal. iv. 27 (quotn.) στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα 
(Heb. Xb), Rom. iv. 12. In Eph. v. 4 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] the reading 
τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα would be an exception also,’ but the reading is by no 
means established [Tdf. now with Treg. Lchm. cod. Sin. ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν] ; 
cf. Rom. i. 28. 

b) Should the Participle have no Article, μή is used 
unqualifiedly when the participial clause is equivalent to a 
hypothetical sentence, and so is to be resolved by if; as, εἰδότι 
καὶ μὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁμαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν (Jas. iv. 17; Matt. xiii. 19, 
etc.). On the other hand, if the participial clause contains 
an actual matter of fact, and so is to be resolved by means of 
a Relative, or by since, whilst, during, without, etc., it is neg- 
atived (often when the circumstances are altogether the 
same) sometimes by ov, sometimes, and indeed more com- 
monly, by μή. 

1 Τὴ Acts xix. 27 [Treg.] Tdf. (κινδυνεύει... eis οὐδὲν [οὐθὲν ed. 8] λογισθῆναι) 
rather the single fragment of the sentence (οὐδέν) is negatived, although usage 
elsewhere would nevertheless have led us to expect μηδέν, and hence the other 
strongly [yet not by cod. Sin.] supported reading (λογισθήσεται Lchm ) perhaps 
is to be preferred. On 2 Tim. ii. 14 see 8 p. 352. 

2 In Greek authors also such cases, when no antithesis occurs (as in Ar. Eccl. 


187), are extremely rare, e.g. Luc. adv. Ind. 5 6 κυβερνᾷν οὐκ εἰδὼς καὶ ἱππεύειν μδὴ 
μεμελετηκώς. 


§ 148.] NEGATIVES. 351 


The o.iginal difference between the two negatives (although in 
point of fact no longer adhered to in employing them) is still evident 
in such sentences as Matt. xxii. 11, 12 εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἐνδεδυμένον 
(who had not on), but subsequently εἰσῆλθες μὴ ἔχων ἔνδυμα (although 
thou hadst not etc.), 1 Pet. i. 8 dv οὐκ ἰδόντες (having in point of fact 
not seen him) ἀγαπᾶτε, eis Ov ἄρτι μὴ δρῶντες (although ye do not see) 
πιστεύοντες δέ etc. Examples of the less common negative οὐ (οὐδέν) 
in a Participial clause which is temporal or causal, or to be resolved by 
means of a Relative, are Luke vi. 42 (od βλέπων), John x. 12 οὐκ dv 
ποιμήν explained by οὗ οὐκ ἔστιν τὰ πρόβατα ἴδια, Acts xxvi. 22 οὐδὲν 
ἐκτὸς λέγων, xxviii. 17 οὐδὲν ποιήσας (although in point of fact), 
vii. 5 (Gen. absol.), 1 Cor. ix. 26 πυκτεύω ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων, Gal. iv. 8 
οὐκ εἰδότες, Col. ii. 19; Heb. xi. 1,35. Examples of οὐ in consequence 
of the emphasis of antithesis, are 2 Cor. iv. 8,9 ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι 
ἀλλ᾽ od στενοχωρούμενοι, ἀπορούμενοι ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐξαπορούμενοι etc., Phil. 
iii. 3 οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες ... καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες, 1 Cor. 
iy. 14 οὐκ ἐντρέπων ὑμᾶς γράφω ταῦτα, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς etc.; and because a 
particular part of the sentence (rather than the whole) is denied, 
are Luke vii. 6 ἤδη αὐτοῦ οὐ μακρὰν ἀπέχοντος, Acts xvii. 27; xxvii. 
20 χειμῶνος οὐκ ὀλίγου ἐπικειμένου. 

Everywhere else the dependent negative μή is used, even with the 
most definite matters of fact, and in cases thoroughly concrete. Ex- 
amples are so abundant in all parts of the N. T., that it is enough to 
give a few corresponding to those above with ov, or passages quite 
parallel: Matt. xviii. 25 μὴ ἔχοντος αὐτοῦ ἀποδοῦναι, ἐκέλευσεν etc., Xxil. 
25 μὴ ἔχων σπέρμα ἀφῆκεν τὴν γυναῖκα, 29 πλανᾶσθε, μὴ εἰδότες (because) 
τὰς γραφὰς μηδὲ etc., Acts v. 7; ix. 26; xii. 19 Ἡρώδης ἐπιζητήσας καὶ 
μὴ εὑρὼν ἐκέλευσεν etc., xvii. 6; Luke xviii. 2, etc.; even in antithesis, 
Mark v. 26 μηδὲν ὠφεληθεῖσα, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εἰς τὸ χεῖρον ἐλθοῦσα, Acts 
ix. 7 εἱστήκεισαν ἐνεοί, ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς, μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες, 


2 Cor. vi. 9. 


ο) When the Participle with εἶναι is used as a periphrasis 
for a finite verb (ὃ 144, 24 sq. p. 808sq.), the dependent neg- 
ative μή must be used, even in the most concrete cases, if it 
is not the copula (and thus the entire sentence), but the 
Participle alone, that is to be negatived. 


Accordingly we must distinguish Luke vi. 43 οὐκ ἔστιν δένδρον καλὸν 
ποιοῦν καρπὸν σαπρόν, Xxili. 53 ἐν μνήματι, οὗ οὐκ ἦν οὐδεὶς οὔπω κείμενος, 
xii. 6; John iii. 24; Rom. 111. 12; 2 Cor. 1]. 17; Jas. iii. 15, ete., from 
Luke xiii. 11 ἦν συγκύπτουσα καὶ μὴ δυναμένη ἀνακύψαι, i. 20 ἔσῃ 
σιωπῶν καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος λαλῆσιιι, Acts ix. 9 ἦν ἡμέρας τρεῖς μὴ 
βλέπων. 


302 


859 NEGATIVES. [8148 


4) Lastly, the Participle is negatived by μή (sometimes 
even in case of antithesis, cf. 8 below), whenever the entire 
sentence. to which the Participle belongs requires the de- 
pendent negation. 


Of this case also there are many examples: 1 Cor. vii. 29 (τοῦτο δέ 
φημι) ἵνα οἱ ἔχοντες γυναῖκας ὡς μὴ ἔχοντες Gow, καὶ οἱ κλαίοντες ὡς μὴ 
etc., Eph. v. 27 ἵνα παραστήσῃ ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μὴ ἔχουσαν etc., 
Phil. iii. 9 εὑρεθῶ μὴ ἔχων etc., Rom. xii. 16, 17, 19, ete. 


B. § 148, 2g. (Germ. ed.); J. § 744, 1 Obs.; W. p. 479 (446 sq... 

8 Several examples of the use of the direct negative, in 
sentences which otherwise prefer μή, as soon as the negatived 
word stands in sharp antithesis (marked by ἀλλά, δέ, εἰ μήν) to 
some other and following part of the sentence, have already 
been given above, see 3a) p. 846, 7 a) and b) p. 850. According 
to this principle the direct negative makes its appearance in 
such cases (although by no means necessarily) even in sentences 
which positively require μή, as final and imperative 
sentences; see 7d) above. The difference between these two 
modes of expression is this: when the direct negative is used, 
the negatived part of the sentence is, as it were, brought out 

803 conspicuously from the rest (by supplying some such word as 
λέγων, and the emphasis falls on what follows introduced by 
ἀλλά, etc. (cf. 3 a) p. 845); on the other hand, where μή is 
used, both parts of the sentence remain equally related to the 
whole. 

Examples: 1 Pet. iii. 3 ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὃ ἔξωθεν ... κόσμος, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ 
κρυπτός etc. whose adorning ought to be not (or, I do not say) the out- 
ward ... but etc., Rev. ix. 4 ἵνα μὴ ἀδικήσουσιν τὸν χόρτον τῆς γῆς, οὐδὲ 
πᾶν χλωρὸν οὐδὲ πᾶν δένδρον, εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους etc. Cf. 1 Cor. v. 
10 ἔγραψα μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι τοῖς πόρνοις, οὐ πάντως etc., on this see 
§ 161, 19 p. 889. On the other hand, 1 Pet. v. 2, 3 ποιμάνατε... μὴ 
ἀναγκαστῶς ἀλλ᾽ ἑκουσίως, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῶς ἀλλὰ προθύμως μηδὲ ete., 
Phil. ii. 2-4 πληρώσατέ μου τὴν χαρὰν ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε, ... μὴ τὰ 
éav-Gv σκοποῦντες, ἀλλά etc., John xviii. 40, etc. 2 Tim. ii. 14 μή λο- 
γομάχει (Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.] λονομαχεῖν) ἐπ᾽ οὐδὲν χρήσιμον, without 
an adversative clause following, is more surprising, and only to be 


explained by the emphatic prominence given to an individual 
word. 


On οὐ, as asecond and independent negation of a particular 
part of a sentence, in sentences with μή, see 11 p. 354. 


§148.] NEGATIVES. 353 


B. § 148, N. 8; Η. § 840; C. §§ 685a.; 686 6.; Ὁ. ὃ 534; J. ὃ 745, Obs. 5. 

Examples of negatived substantives, i.e. of substantives trans- 9 
formed by the negative into their opposites and blending with it, as it 
were, into a single word, occur only in O. T. quotations. The negative 
then is always οὐ, because compounds of the sort are formed in Hebrew 
with X>, Rom. ix. 25; 1 Pet. ii. 10 of ποτε οὐ λαός, νῦν δὲ λαός, Rom. 

x. 19 ἐπ᾽ οὐκ ἔθνει. In Greek elsewhere both species of negative are. 
met with, see particularly B. and J. as above. 

On the negative with the Imperative, and the Subjunctive as its 
substitute, see § 139, 6 p. 211. 


B. § 148, 4and N. 5; H. 88 720d.; 846; C. § 626; D. §538sq,; J. § 814; 6. 8 46 N. 4. 


On μή as the conjunction after verbs and notions of fear and 9 
anxiety, see § 139, 48 p. 241sq. Of the usage according to 
which sentences with μή (μήπως, μήποτε), When no verbum 
timendi is expressed, contain the idea of fear or anxiety, 
the N. T. also affords a few evident examples. Thus, with a 
Subjunctive following, Matt. xxv. 9 λέγουσαι" μήποτε ov μὴ 
ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν ; and with a Future following, Rom. xi. 21 
Tdf. [eds. 2,7; ed. 8 omits μήπως with Lchm. Treg. cod. Sin. ] 
μήπως οὐδὲ cod φείσεται. See on the second negative in both 
sentences No. 11 following. 


As, according to B. ὃ 139, m. 50; G. § 46, N. 4, ete. (cf. Gal. iv. 11 
above in § 139, 48 p. 242), in sentences where a verb of fearing is 
expressed, a preterite Indicative may be used after μή in order to 
represent the object of fear as in a degree an actually existing fact, 
so here too; as, Gal. ii. 2 ἀνέβην δὲ καὶ ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ... 
κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον i.e. tn the 
anxiety lest (or, in order to see whether, cf. Luke xi. 35 in ὃ 139, 49 
Ρ. 243) perchance my efforts are, or have already been, in vain. So 
recent interpreters, — with this difference only, that they unnecessarily 
still want to retain τρέχω as a Subjunctive. On the contrary, it is in 
the Indicative as really as the following ἔδραμον, and glancing at the 
latter presents in advance the notion of the present as a like object of 304 
anxiety. 1 Thess. iii. 5 ἔπεμψα εἰς τὸ γνῶναι τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν, μήπως 
ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὃ πειράζων καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὃ κόπος ἡμῶν, fearing 
for, in order to see whether) perchance the tempter has tempted you, 
and my labor thus might become in vain. Heb. ix. 17 διαθήκη 
βεβαία, ἐπεὶ μή ποτε ἰσχύει ὅτε ζῇ ὃ διαθέμενος affords an example of 
the use (which increased more and more in later Greek) of μήποτε 


with the Indicative, the notion of anxiety or of doubting inter- 
45 


354 NEGATIVES. [8 148 


rogation residing in the negative having gradually receded, and sa 
μήποτε being used almost like οὔποτε in the sense of probably never.’ 

On μή as an interrogative particle, see ὃ 139, 55 p. 248; 
and on οὐ μή as a strengthened negation with the Fut. and the 
Subjunct., ibid. 7 p. 211sq. Of μὴ οὐ asa mere intensification 
there is no instance. 


B. 8.148, N. 7a.; H. § 846; C. § 713 sub fin.; D. § 587; J. § 750. 

11 Similar negatives as a rule strengthen each other, or the 
second is only the continuation of the first. Hence in 
sentences already, for any reason, negatived by (the conjunce- 
tion) μή, as soon as a particular part of the sentence is 
to be negatived again, and independently of the first negation, 
this must be done in every instance by the other form of 
negation, that is to say by οὐ. 


Examples from classic authors after the μή implying anxiety (Lat. 
ne non) may be seen in the Grammars. From the N. T. we have 
2 Cor. xii. 20 φοβοῦμαι μήπως ἐλθὼν od x οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς ; see 
further Matt. xxv. 9 and Rom. xi. 21 in the preceding paragraph. 
For the same reason, in an interrogative sentence with the μή of 
doubt, as soon as an affirmative answer is expected (nonne), not 
μή again but οὐ must be introduced as the second negative; for 
examples of this, see § 139, 55 p. 248. 


B. § 148, N. 7b. and N. 8; J. § 747; W. p. 498 (464). 

12 Cases may occur, however, in which two similar negatives 
destroy each other, inasmuch as both the sense and the natural 
position of the words exclude all ambiguity. In the N. T. there is 
only one passage where similar negatives destroy each other in one 
and the same sentence: 1 Cor. xii. 15 ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὃ πούς, ... οὗ 
παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος. Here it was necessary to use 
the same negative twice, becaise the nature of the sentence did not 

805 permit any other than the okjective form of negation either at the 
beginning or inthe middle ; and that they mutually destroy each other 
follows from the sense inevitably. 


1 Still more frequently, in the writings e.g. of Aristotle, and especially in the 
literary language of the Alexandrians (the Grammarians, and the Scholiasts), it 
may be rendered simply by perhaps (i.e. tows), which sprung by abbreviation 
from the complete sentence ὅρα μήποτε followed by the Subjunctive: see to it lest 
perchance ete.; as, Arist. Eth. Nic. 10 init. (μή ποτε ob καλῶς τοῦτ») λέγεται), 
iii. 2 (μήποτ᾽ οὐ λέγουσι τὸ αἴτιον. Μή with the Indic. also is so used; as, 
Apoll. Adverb. 567. On this subject see further, Steph. Thes. sub voce; Bhdy. 
p- 397; Devar. ed. Klotz I. p. 187. 


§ 148.1 NEGATIVES. 355 


On the other hand, a double self-destroying negation for the 
purpose of an emphatic affirmation is more common in two 
sentences immediately dependent one on the other, viz. a 
leading clause anda Relative clause dependent upon it, 
after the analogy of the classic usage discussed in B. § 148, 
N.8; C.§559c.; J. § 824, 2 (yet without such attraction 
as in οὐδεὶς ὅστις ov, οὐδενὶ ὅτῳ οὐ etc.); as, Matt. x. 26 
οὐδέν ἐστιν κεκαλυμμένον ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται, Kal κρυπτὸν 
ὃ οὐ γνωσθήσεται, XXiv. 2 οὐ μὴ ἀφεθὴ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον, ὃς 
οὐ καταλυθήσεται, Mark xiii. 2; Luke viii. 17; xii. 2; xxi. 6. 
Here belong those sentences, also, in which, instead of the 
negatived leading clause, the form of a question is chosen ; as, 
Acts xix. 35 τές ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων ὃς οὐ γινώσκει etc., Heb. xii. 7 
τίς yap υἱὸς ὃν οὐ παιδεύει πατήρ. 


B. § 148, N. 9; H. § 888; C. §718d.; D. $505; J. 149; 6. pp. 198 5ᾳ. 

The pleonastic use, too, of μή in dependent Infinitive 
clauses after predicates which include within themselves a 
negative force, has been preserved, at least in certain parts 
of the N. T. (e.g. Luke’s writings), especially with the Infini- 
tive introduced by τοῦ. 


See examples of this last kind in § 140, 16 p. 269. We have, 
besides, without τοῦ, Luke xx. 27 οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι, 
xxii. 84 Tdf. ἕως τρὶς ἀπαρνήσῃ μὴ εἰδέναι με, Heb. xii. 19 παρῃτήσαντο 
μὴ προστεθῆναι αὐτοῖς λόγον, Gal. v. 7 τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ 
πείθεσθα. Analogous is the pleonastic οὐ when an Infin. is resolved 
into a clause with ὅτι, 1 John ii. 22 6 ἀρνούμενος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ 
ἔστιν ὃ Χριστός, cf. Mark ix. 38 Lchm. ['Tdf. cod. Sin.], and from 
classic authors, Demosth, Phil. p. 124 extr.; Xen. Anab. 2, 3, 25; 
Ath. 2.17, ete. Pleonastic also is the negative in the common 
phrase ἐκτὸς εἰ μή 1.6. except tf, except tt be, as 1 Cor. xiv. 5 μείζων ὃ 
προφητεύων, ... ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ, xv. 2; 1 Tim. v. 19; see Lob. 
ad Phryn. p. 459, and on the Subjunct. § 139, 22 p. 221. 

Remark. In Rom. iv. 19 Lchm. [so Treg. Tdf.] in his text has 
omitted the οὐ before κατενόησεν, with the oldest authorities [cod. Sin. 
also]. But since the context seems to require a negation, other editors 
have adopted ov, which likewise is sufficiently attested; or it is 
thought necessary, at least to supply the direct negative od with 
κατενόησεν from the μή with ἀσθενήσας. That a single negative can 
belong ἀπὸ κοινοῦ to t wo notions is certain (see, among others, Poppo 
on Thue. 1,12; O. Schneider on Isocr. 4,3; Grot. on Eur. Tro. 638; 
Mehthorn on the Schema ἀπὸ κοινοῦ p. 148sq.; Kriiger, Gram. § 67, 8 


li 


356 NEGATIVES. [8 148 


Anm. 4); e.g. Luke viii. 12 ἵνα μὴ πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν, and cf. the 
command ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε in ὃ 144, 2 p. 290. But whether 
Greek usage permits the direct negative to be supplied from the 
dependent negative is more than doubtful. Further, against either 
supplying or adopting od makes the manifest reference of the words 
to Gen. xvii. 17; for only to this passage, not to Gen. xy. 5sq., does 

806 the express mention of the νέκρωσις τῆς μήτρας Σάρρας in the nine- 
teenth vs. point us. But then the words μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει 
seem to be at variance with the narrative in Gen. xvii. and still 
more with the positive κατενόησεν immediately following, as well as 
with the drift of Paul’s entire argument. In order to solve this 
difficulty the assumption is perhaps justifiable, that the words μὴ 
ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει are to be taken proleptically,and that the 
true consequent clause does not begin till the twentieth vs. (εἰς δὲ τὴν 
ἐπαγγελίαν etc.). The words κατενόησεν etc. form, then, not so much 
a parenthetic insertion to designate more precisely the passage of the 
O. T. which the apostle had in mind, as an antithesis to the following 
οὐ διεκρίθη, such as is otherwise wont to be indicated by the particles 
pev... δέ; hence the thought is as follows: not wavering in faith, he 
considered, indeed, his senility and the deadness of Sarah’s womb, but 
in reference to the promise of God etc. The want of μέν would. 
indeed be an offence in a classic writer; but how often in all parts of 
the N. T. the sharpest antitheses are given merely by a simple δέ (see 
examples in ὃ 149, 11 p. 364 and the note on p. 121), or even by καί 
(see the examples under § 149 8, b) p. 861 sq.), is well known; how 
much more occasion for this liberty was there here, where the writer 
might have contented himself with the simple participle (κατανοήσας), 
but, as he wrote, was precluded from that by the ἀσθενήσας which 
he had just used. ‘This construction of the passage, moreover, is by 
no means destitute of parallels in the composition of the apostle. On 
the contrary, a number of passages stand in the plainest analogy to 
it: where two members of a sentence are connected with each other 
by οὐκ... ἀλλά (δέ), and yet the thought in the first member is not to 
be denied absolutely, but only relatively in reference to the 
leading thought, in order, as Winer 497 (462) aptly says, “to 
direct undivided attention to the second and principal thought, the first 
comparatively disappearing from view,” accordingly for rhetorical 
reasons; cf. Fritzsche on Mark, Exc. II. Such passages are — from 
the historical writings Matt. x. 20; Mark ix. 87; Luke x. 20; John 
xii. 44; Acts v.4;— from the Epistles, 1 Cor. xv. 10; 1 Thess.-iv. 8, 
cf. also 1 Cor. i. 17 and deWette’s Comment. As in all these passages 
the writer hurries over the negative and parenthetic thought to the 
second and positive member, so Paul above hurries over the first and 
positive member to the second and negative (οὐ διεκρίθη). 


§ 149.] ds, οὕτως ; ἵνα ; ὅτι, 861 


OTHER PaRTICLES. 
Β. § 149, τι. 1; H. δ 875; 795a.; C. ὃ 7lla.; J. §§ 626, Obs. 1; 696, Obs. 5. 

Ὡς, οὕτως. The combination of ὡς with a preposition of direction 1 
(versus) seems to have been unknown to the N. T. writers; for in the 
only passage where it occurs (Acts xvii. 14 ὡς ἐπί Grsb. Tdf. [eds. 2, 
7 |), the most important authorities [cod. Sin. also] read ἕως ἐπί, which 
Lchm. [so Tdf. Treg.] has adopted. The accented ds for οὕτως also 
is not found. 

It is an extension of the familiar idiom by virtue of which 
οὕτως stands after participial clauses in order to resume 
them again in the conclusion (ὃ 144, 21 p. 306), when, the 
participial clause being wanting, this adverb by a somewhat 307 
easy and popular mode of expression completely takes the 
place of the participle; as, Acts vii. 8 ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δια- 
θήκην περιτομῆς " καὶ οὕτως (i.e. after this happened) ἐγέννησεν 
τὸν ᾿Ισαάκ, xxviii. 14: 1 Cor. ix. 24 οὐκ οἴδατε etc.; οὕτως 
(i.e. τοῦτο εἰδότες) τρέχετε, xiv. 25; Gal. vi. 2; 1 Thess. iv. 
av; 2 Pet. 7. 11. 

In this way it passes over insensibly, like the Latin 5876, into the 
meaning of the connective then, so then, as Acts xvii. 33; Rev. iii. 16. 
Quite analogous to this is its use after a protasis with ei (almost 
pleonastically like the German so, but more emphatic and resuming 
the protasis) to mark the beginning of the apodosis; as, 1 Thess. iv. 
14 εἰ yap πιστεύομεν ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη, οὕτως Kal ὃ θεὸς ἄξει 
etc., Rev. xi. 5 εἴ τις αὐτοὺς θέλει ἀδικῆσαι, οὕτως δεῖ αὐτὸν ἀποκτανθῆναι. 


Β. § 149, m. 2; H. §508b.; C. §566a.; J. ὃ 882, 1. 

Ἵνα. Of the elliptical use of ἵνα τί (equiv. to διὰ τί; wherefore?) 3 
with an Indicative following (which occurs even in the earlier writers: 
Aristoph., Plato), there are many examples in the Old Test. as well 
as the New, and in later writers generally; as, Matt. ix. 4 wa τί 
ἐνθυμεῖσθε πονηρὰ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν ; xxvii. 46; Luke xiii. 7; Acts 
iv. 25 (quotn.), vii. 26; 1 Cor. x. 29; cf. Herm. ad Vig. p. 847. 


B. § 149, m. 8; H. §§ 868; 869; C. ὃ ΤΟΙ, N.; D. p.571; J. §§ 8008q.; 802 Obs. 8. 
Ὅτι. Like the English that (cf. Germ. dass, Ital. che, French 3 

gue), ὅτι is the most frequent (subordinating) conjunction, 
and employed in manifold phrases; for, besides its common 
and most general sense (that), like the corresponding particles 
just mentioned in other languages, it is used sometimes pleo- 
nastically, sometimes elliptically, and sometimes passes over 
into the signification of other and more pointed particles 
(especially because). 


858 PARTICLES. [8 149 


On the pleonastic use of dr after verba dicendi see § 139, 51 
Ρ. 245. 

To the elliptical, belongs the expression τί ὅτι (which may 
be compared with the Lat. guid quod; but it is uttered without any 
rhetorical emphasis) in such sentences as Luke ii. 49 τί ὅτι ἐζητεῖτε 
pe; (why is it that etc.), Acts v. 4,9; Mark ii. 16 Lchm.,— where, 
however, Tdf. [so Treg.] after cod B has given the preference to the 
interrogative ὅτι (§ 139, 59 p. 252),— and often in the Sept., as Gen. 
xviii. 13; xliv. 4; Judg. ix. 28, ete.; with the ellipsis supplied, John 
xiv. 22 τί γέγονεν ὅτι ἡμῖν μέλλεις ἐμφανίζειν σεαυτόν; John vii. 35 ποῦ 
οὗτος μέλλει πορεύεσθαι, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οὐχ εὑρήσομεν αὐτόν ; is to be explained 
by a different kind of ellipsis; it arises from the two thoughts Whither 
will he go? and How is it to be that we are not to find him? united 
into a single sentence by abbreviation, in popular fashion. Similar 
is Matt. xvi. 7 of δὲ διελογίζοντο A€yovres+ ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ ἐλάβομεν, 
where he says this because, or he has reference to the fact that etc, is 
to be supplied. Of an elliptical nature, further, is the combination 
(peculiar to Paul) ὡς ore in the sense of guasi ; 2 Thess. ii. 2 ὡς ὅτι 
ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου abbreviated from, as (happens when it is 
the case) that the day of the Lord is at hand. Similar, but with more 
of the common meaning of ὅτι, accordingly as if that, because, is the 

808 use of ὡς ὅτι in 2 Cor. v. 19; xi. 21 (see Meyer on the passages, and 
the instances of ὡς ὅτε which he quotes from Greek writers; and on 
the not infrequent use of ws ὅτι in later writers, especially in the 
Alexandrian literary language, see Bast on Greg. Cor. p. 52). ὅτι 
equivalent to δῆλον ὅτι ἰῃ 1 Tim. vi. 7 Lchm. [T.Tr.x*] (Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] 
δῆλον ὅτι) is exceptional. On the elliptical οὐχ ὅτι see ὃ 150, 1 p. 372. 


Β. § 149, m. 4; H. § 872; ©. § 701f. sq.; J. 85 850 sq.; 860, 5. 

4 Ei. The elliptical use of εἰ in oaths is a Hebraism current 
in the Sept. and transferred thence into the N.T. This εἰ arose 
from the literal translation of the Hebrew ox, which imparts 
a negative force to the contents of the oath, and hence x} ox a 
positive force indeed! of a truth!, see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 844 ; 
Gr. § 152, 2f. 


Examples of εἰ from the Sept. are, 1 Sam. iii. 14; 2 Sam. xx. 20; 
xi.11; Ps. xcv. 11, etc., less frequently ἐάν Cant. ii. 7; Judg. v. 8, also 
the Infin. with μή Gen. xxi. 23, (the affirmative intensification > 0X 
is either not translated at all, as Josh. xiv. 9; Isa. xiv. 24; Job xxx. 
25; xxxi. 36, or by 7 μήν Jobi. 11 or εἰ μή xxii. 20, etc.). This mode 
of expression is evidently founded in an ellipsis (Aposiopesis), a 
thought being reserved in the mind which in other passages of the 
O. T. is expressed, and is commonly translated by the Sept. as follows: 


. 


§ 149.] et μή; ἐπεί. — 889 


τάδε ποιήσαι σοι ὃ θεὸς καὶ τάδε προσθείη, e.g. 1 Sam. iii. 17; 2 Sam. 
li. 8ὅ, etc. In the N. T. this εἰ is found in Mark viii. 12 (where it is 
interpreted in the various readings by ov), and several times as a 
quotation from Ps. xcv. 11 in the Ep. to the Heb., viz. iii. 11 cf. 18; 
iv. 3,5. On the other hand, εἰ μήν in Heb. yi. 14 is positive, like 
the 7 μήν in use elsewhere, and (according to Etym. mag. 416, 50) 
only a different (itacistic) way of writing it; and in fact, in Gen. xxii. 
17 (whence the above passage is taken) the mss. offer both readings. 
But it is construed with the Indic., except in Judith i. 12 where the 
Infin. (current in Greek writers) is given: ὦμοσε εἰ μὴν ἐκδικήσειν. 

The elliptical use of the combined particles εἰ μή (which have 
become almost a single conjunction) in the sense of except, nist, 
after a preceding negation, is so general that passages in which the - 
predicate is added, as Mark vi. 5, are very rare; and the phrase 
became so established in this sense, that, like εἴτε... εἴτε in ὃ 139, 22 
p- 220 sq., it was retained even where the construction would sooner 
lead us to expect ἐὰν μή (Matt. xxvi. 42; Gal. ii. 16, etc., cf. 6 p. 360), 
as Mark vi. 8 ἵνα μηδὲν aipwow εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον etc., ix. 9, etc., and the 
clause dependent on it was insensibly changed even as respects its 
form into a leading clause, as 1 Cor. vii. 17 εἰ μὴ, ἑκάστῳ ds ἐμέρισεν 6 
κύριος, οὕτως περιπατεΐίτω; ---- with which may be compared the 
similar grammatical phenomena in connection with ἵνα (ὃ 139, 37 
Ρ. 233), ὅτι (§ 139, 53 p. 246), ὥστε (δ 139, 50 p. 243). ΑἹ] that has 
been said holds also with more or less force as respects the extended 
combinations of particles εἰ μή τι (on which see ὃ 139, 20, 22 
pp. 219sq.) and ἐκ ros εἰ μή (see ibid 22 p. 221, and ὃ 148, 13 
p- 355). 

B. § 149, m. δ; H. 8 877, 5; D. p. 569; § 617 Obs.; J. δ 839, Obs.; 860, 2. 

Ἔπ εί. In consequence of a brachylogical mode of expression, ὃ 
this conjunction plainly has in several passages the signification 
since or for otherwise, — it being necessary to supply or repeat 
from the immediately preceding context the supposition sug- 
gested by our particle otherwise, else. 

For example: Rom. ili. 6 μὴ ἄδικος 6 Beds... , ἐπεὶ πῶς κρινεῖ ὃ θεὸς 
τὸν κόσμον ; for otherwise how etc. (sc. εἰ ἄδικος ὁ θεός), xi. 6 ἐπεὶ ἡ 
χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις (sc. εἰ ἐξ ἔργων λεῖμμα γέγονεν or simply εἰ ἐξ 808 
ἔργων γίνεταί τι) ;... ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἔστιν ἔργον (sc. εἰ χάριτι OF 
χάρις sc. ἔστιν), xi. 22 ἐπεὶ καὶ σὺ ἐκκοπήσῃ, sc. ἐὰν μὴ ἐπιμείνῃς etc., 
Heb. ix. 26; x. 2 in both which instances a hypothetical protasis of 
the fourth kind is to be supplied for the apodosis, which is evidently 
constructed on this model (cf. ὃ 139, 14 and 15 p. 216). So, too, 
1 Cor. v. 10, on which see ὃ 151,19 p. 390. See besides the very 
similar idiom with ἀλλά in 14 p. 8609. 


360 PARTICLES. , [ξ 149. 


B. $149, πα. 6. 
ἐάν. By a certain inaccuracy of expression ἐάν stands once ap- 


parently for ὃς ἄν in Mark x. 30, 31 οὐδείς ἐστιν ὃς ἀφῆκεν oikiav ..., 


ἐὰν μὴ λάβῃ etc. (D ds av). This construction arose and is to be 
explained in the same way as εἰ μή (ἐὰν μή) nist, by which the pre- 
ceding negative is destroyed (see above, 4 p. 359), so that the meaning 
here is nearly as follows: no one leaves etc. unless he receives, i.e. 
every one who leaves etc. will receive. 

The contracted κἄν (from καὶ ἐάν) stands several times, by an ellipsis, 
without a finite verb (cf. Demosth. p. 415, 24; Soph. El. 1483) 
almost adverbially in the sense of if only, at least (in which sense 
it occurs times without number in later writers and the Apocrypha) ; 
as, Acts v. 15 iva ἐρχομένου Πέτρου κἂν ἡ σκιὰ ἐπισκιάσῃ i.e. if (it were) 
only his shadow, Mark vi. 56; 2 Cor. xi. 16 εἰ δὲ μή ye, κἂν ὡς ἄφρονα 
δέξασθέ με. 


B. 8.149, m. 7; H. § 860; C. §§ 718h.; 511, 513; D. p. 569; J. §§ 876 Obs. 8; 779 Obs. 8. 

ἤ. To the examples cited here of ἢ οὐ after a negative (or inter- 
rogative) clause instead of the simple ἤ, a parallel is apparently given 
in 1 Thess. ii. 19 τίς yap ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς ἢ χαρὰ ... ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς; Yet 
since the antecedent question is not to be taken in an exclusive 
(negative) sense, as the καὶ before ὑμεῖς proves, the clause ἢ οὐχὶ ete. 
is to be joined to the first question as a second, which, because it 
assumes an affirmative answer, is negatived by ov. 

On the other hand, indubitable instances are found of the 
other power of 7 mentioned here, viz. to impart to a Positive 
notion the force of a Comparative; as, Matt. xviii. 8; Mark 
ix. 43, 45 καλόν ἐστίν ce κυλλὸν, χωλὸν εἰσελθεῖν ἢ etc., Luke 
xv. 7 χαρὰ ἔσται (80. μείζων) ἐπὶ évi ἁμαρτωχῷ μετανοοῦντι ἢ 
etc. Accordingly it imparts to the signification of θέλω the 
force of malle in 1 Cor. xiv. 19, and to λυσιτελεῖν the force of 
satius esse in Luke xvii. 2; ef. the parallel passages above from 
Matt. and Mark. See the similar phenomena under ὑπέρ 
(p. 335) and παρά with the Ace. (p. 339). 


B. $149, τα. 8; H. δὲ 855-57; C. $701; D. §§ 549saq.; J. δ 758.sq. 

τέ, καί. The particle re, which is but rarely employed in the Gospels, 
is used by Luke in the Acts with fondness, sometimes simply for the 
ordinary καί (ii. 37 ; iv. 33, ete.), sometimes in the combination re καί. 
But where these two particles do not connect immediately with one 
another two similar or parallel terms, they can only signify and also, 
the τὲ in such case belonging to the sentence and καί to the single 
word, as Acts xxi. 28 οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ ἄνθρωπος 6... πάντας πανταχῆ 


§ 149.] τέ; Kal, 361 


διδάσκων, ἔτι τε καὶ Ἕλληνας εἰσήγαγεν, Rom. i. 27 Τα [cod. Sin. ]. 

In the reverse order, καί connects the sentence, τὲ the particular term, 310 
as Acts xxvi. 10 καὶ πολλούς τε τῶν ἁγίων κατέκλεισα ete. A double 

“τὲ rarely appears except in composition or with corresponding particles 
(εἴτε, μήτε, ἐάν re), as Acts xxvi. 16; xvii. 4; Heb. vi. 2. 

Kai is by far the most frequent of all the Greek particles in 
the N. T.; and as it is used not only beyond comparison more 
frequently than in the Greek literary language, but also in 
another sense often, or rather under other circumstances, it 
contributes much to the peculiar complexion of the N. T. style. 
This extended use of καί (particularly in the Gospels, see ὃ 144, 
1 p. 288 sq.) proceeds from the practice, characteristic of all 
popular languages, of placing in juxtaposition, with the simplest | 
connection and as independent little sentences, the several parts 
especially of an historic narrative, which in a more choice style 
are wont to be wrought together into a single whole. In the 
Homeric language, and in part also in Herodotus, this takes 
place commonly, indeed, by means of several of the many little 
copulative conjunctions (τέ, δέ, pa, etc.); but in the N. T., 
predominantly by καί. Hence connection by means of καί 
appears, times without number, in part for participial con- 
structions (§ 144, 1 and 2 pp. 288sq.), in part where the 
Greeks would have employed divers other particles. But we 
are not on this account warranted in supposing that it any- 
where includes any other than its characteristic and- proper 
signification (and, also, even). The leading cases in which 
its use deviates more or less from the ordinary usage are the 
following: | 

«) With the use of καί in place of a Participle agrees its employ- 
ment, where, as a rule, the first of two independent sentences 
connected by καί expresses the relation of time for the second (the 
leading) sentence; as, Matt. xxvi. 45 ἤγγικεν ἡ ὥρα καὶ ὃ vids τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται, Mark xy. 25 ἦν δὲ wpa τρίτη καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν 
αὐτόν, Luke xix. 43; xxiii. 44; John x. 22 Lchm., Acts v. 7; Heb. 


viii. 8. Cf. the various constructions with καὶ ἐγένετο ὃ 141, 6 p. 
276. 


b) Very commonly the N. T. language, particularly in the Gospels, 


1 Here, however, the other reading (δὲ Lchm. [Treg. marg.]) seems to be pref- 
erable; the apostle, instead of connecting the second member by τὲ (οἵ τε ἄρσενες 
etc.), having given his discourse a different and more emphatic turn by means of 
the words ὁμοίως δὲ καί. Cf. Wine 571 (531). 

46 


362 PARTICLES. [8149 


contents itself with this most simple method of sonnecting sentences 
where other Greek writers are wont to employ either a simple 
adversative particle (δέ, ἀλλά, μέντοι), or the corresponsive μὲν ... 
δέ; as, Luke xx. 19; Mark xii. 12 ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν κρατῆσαι, καὶ ἐφοβή- 
θησαν τὸν ὄχλον, Matt. xi. 25 ἔκρυψας ... καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας, Mark vii. 24; 
John viii. 49 τιμῶ ... καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀτιμάζετε, vi. 86 (kai... Kat), xvii. 11 
οὐκέτι cil... καὶ οὗτοι εἰσίν, vii. 80 (compared with 44), Luke xviii. 
311 13 [Tdf. with x and] (B 6 δέ), 84 (Ὁ ἀλλ᾽), 1 Thess. ii. 18 (even 
after a preceding μέν, cf. § 126, 3 p. 102, and Hartung, Part. II. p. 410), 
Jas. iv. 2, etc. On καὶ οὐ after positive clauses see also particularly 
below, 13 e) p. 368. 

c) In comparative sentences after ὡς, καθώς, the leading clause or 

the member corresponding to ὡς etc. is often introduced merely by 

«kai, so that it then seems to stand for οὕτως. More correct, however, 
is the assumption that οὕτως drops out before καί, and καί while re- 
taining its own proper meaning (i.e. also) takes upon itself besides 
the relation to be expressed by οὕτως ; as, Matt. vi. 10 γενηθήτω τὸ 
θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς as in heaven, so (also) on earth, 
Acts vii. 51 καθὼς οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν καὶ ὑμεῖς, John vi. 57 καθὼς ἐγὼ ζῶ. .., 
καὶ ὃ τρώγων με ζήσει ete., xiii. 15, 88 ; Gal. i. 9; Phil. i. 20; 1 John 
ii. 18, etc. That a similar use occurs also in Greek authors, see 
(among others) Kiihner on Xen. Mem. 2, 2, 2. 

d) There are several passages also, where, after an antecedent 
dependent clause (protasis), the leading or consequent clause 
begins with καί, very much as in Greek authors so often with (the 
copulative and adversative) δέ (see B. § 149m. 9; J. § 759, Obs. 3) ; 
as, Luke ii. 21 ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι ..., καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα 
αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, cf. 22; Acts xiii. 19 ὡς ἐτροφοφόρησεν αὐτοὺς ..., καὶ 
καθελὼν etc., Phil. i. 22 (where after ἔργου no great punctuation mark 
is to be placed, cf. § 144, 21 p. 306), 2 Cor. ii. 2 εἰ yap ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, 
καὶ tis 6 εὐφραίνων pe ete., Jas. iv. 15; Rev. iii. 20 Tdf. [cod. Sin.], 
x. 7 (see deWette).’ Sentences in which the consequent clause is 
preceded by καὶ ἐδού, as Luke vii. 12; Acts i.10; x. 17 Tdf. [ed.8 
drops καί], have a predominantly Oriental (or O. T.) complexion. 


On the other hand, the N. T. accords with ordinary usage 
as respects, 


e) The union by means of καί of two adjectival notions which are 
not co-ordinate, as in the case of πολύς: Luke iii. 18; John xx. 


1 With these sentences belongs also Jas. iv. 15 ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ καὶ ζήσομεν 
kal ποιήσομεν etc., where, however, it is doubtful whether the consequent clause 
begins with the first καί or the second; but grammatically it is preferable to begin 
it with the first καί, especially as the text now stands with a Future in both in- 
stances [so Lchm. Tdf. Treg., after δὲ etc.]. 


§ 149.] καί; δέ, 868 


80 πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἄλλα σημεῖα ἐποίησεν Ἰησοῦς, Acts xxv. 7 πολλὰ 
καὶ βαρέα αἰτιώματα, Tit. i. 10. 

{) καί in the sense of as (ac) after 6 αὐτός is not met with in the 
N. T. (the Dative is always used instead, B. § 188, 2f.). Only ina 
single passage has καί the meaning as, viz. Eph. iv. 10 ὁ καταβὰς αὐτός 
ἐστιν καὶ ὃ ἀναβάς, where probably the 6 before αὐτός has been omitted 
owing to the 6 before καταβάς, (yet cf. Meyer [or Ellic.] in loc.). 
The common phrases ὁμοίως καί, ὡσαύτως καί, and ὃ αὐτὸς kai, on the 
other hand, are of an entirely different nature, and in them καί has 
only the meaning also (Matt. xxii. 26; xxvii. 44; Mark xiv. 31; 
1 Cor. vii. 7; xv. 48; 1 Thess. ii. 14, etc.) ; so too after a Relative, 
ὡς καί, ὁποῖος καί, ὅσῳ καί, on which the general use of καί after 
Relatives (§ 143, 5 p. 282sq.) may be compared; as, Luke xi. 1; 
Acts xv. 8; xxvi. 29; Heb. viii. 6. 

g) καί as strengthening the Com parative, like the Latin etiam: 
Matt. xi. 9 vai λέγω ὑμῖν, καὶ περισσότερον προφήτου, John xiv. 12 
(and even), 2 Cor. xii. 15 Tdf. [eds. 2,7; 8, Treg. x* om.], Heb. viii. 6. 

ἢ) Although sentences with καί according to their grammatical 
form can contain nothing else than specifications additional to what 
precedes, yet these specifications may at the same time serve 
also as explanatory supplements to the antecedent sentence or notion, 
so that they then sustain the relation of an epexegetical adjunct 
to the latter. In such cases we are wont to render the καί by namely, 
and indeed ; as, John i. 16 ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ πάντες ἐλάβομεν, 
καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος, 1 Cor. iii. 5; xv. 38; Acts xxiii. 6 περὶ ἐλπίδος 
Kal ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι. 

i) On καὶ... δέ see 10 p. 364; on καὶ in continuation of a negative 
(equiv. to οὐδέ etc.) 13d) p. 868; and on the (apparent) omission of 
καί 14 p. 369. 


B. § 149,m.9; H. § 862; C. §§ 701¢.q.; 705a.; D. 88 559sq.; J. §§ 7648q.; 768 sq. 

Aé. Owing to the prevalent employment of καί as a particle 
of transition and continuation, the number of passages where 
the particle δέ is used, as in the classics, rather copulatively, 
i.e. to subjoin a subordinate circumstance in a supplementary 
way or to form a connection with what follows, is comparatively 
small; as, Matt. xxi. 8: John vi. 10; Actsvi. 2; xxiv. 17; 
Rom. viii. 8, ete. 

In other passages δέ has probably found its way by means of the 
copyists into the text instead of the more common particles of transi- 
tion in the N. T. (γάρ, καί), which particles have sometimes been 
restored (e.g. Col. iii. 25; 1 Cor. vii. 38; Mark xvi. 8 Lchm. [Treg. 
Tdf. cod. Sin.], xiv. 2; xv. 33; Luke xii. 42, etc.); or δέ was first 


912 


364 PARTICLES. [8 149 


added by the copyists (as οὖν, καί often were also) to avoid the 
asyndeton displeasing to a Greek ear; this has been done times with- 
out number in John, as i. 26 Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.], 40, 43; ii. 4, 17; 
iv. 81, 50, 54; v. 29; vi. 43, 45, ete. Cf. § 151, 33 p. 402. 

Of δέ in the Apodosis we find but one example, Acts xi. 17 εἰ 
οὖν τὴν ἴσην δωρεὰν ἔδωκεν ... , ἐγὼ δὲ τίς Hunv etc. This de Tdf. [eds. 
2,7 ; not 8] adopted, in opposition indeed to the oldest mss. [ Sin. also] ; 
but this (genuine classic) use is so rare in the N.T. that we can under- 
stand the omission of the δέ by the copyists (cf. Acts xx. 4,5). Taf. 
has now adopted 6 δὲ [ed. 7; in ed. 8 dropped δέ again] in the apodosis 
in 1 Pet. iv. 18 also, after cod. Vat. On the other hand, ἀλλά is often 
found in the apodosis in Paul’s writings, e.g. Rom. vi. 5; 1 Cor. iv. 
15; ix. 2. 

B. 8.149, τα. 10; H. §856b.; J. § 769. 

0 ΚΑααὶ... δέ. Of the combination «ai... δέ in the sense of 
and also, (when the antithesis is stronger but also), there are 
a great many indubitable instances: Matt. x. 18 καὶ ἐπὶ 
ἡγεμόνας δὲ ἀχθήσεσθε, John viii. 16 (οὐ κρίνω) " καὶ ἐὰν κρίνω 
δὲ ἐγώ etc., Matt. xvi. 18; Mark iv. 36 Tdf., Luke ii. 35; John 
vi. 51; viii. 17; xv. 27; Acts iii. 24; xxii. 29; 2 Tim. iii. 12; 
Heb. ix. 21, etc. 


B. § 149, m. 11; H. § 862a.; C. § 701sq.; Ὁ. § 5598q.; J. ὃ 764. 

11 Μὲν... δέ. In the use of these two particles the N. T. 
writers, especially Luke, the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews, 
and Paul, are by no means unpractised. Yet it is not to be 
overlooked, that, in general, antithetic relationship is far from 
always being indicated by these particles where native Greeks 
would hardly have omitted them. In their stead, N.T. writers 
contented themselves often with the simple 6é, and even 
merely with καί (see 8 b) p. 861 sq.). 

Compare, for instance, the antithetic setting of the language in the 
maledictions (ταλανισμοῖῦ) in the twenty-third chap. of Matt., particularly 
813 vss. 3, 4, 8, 11, 23, 24, 25, and often besides in the same chapter. Here, 
indeed, there is no sharp antithesis; yet the Greeks would have em- 
ployed the form of antithesis: μὲν ... dé Only in vss. 27, 28 is per 
... δέ actually used. Further, see John vy. 29; viii. 15; Jas. ii. 2, 10, 
14; iv. 6, the examples in § 127, 32 note p. 121, § 148, 14 p. 356, 
and many others especially from the Gospels and the Apocalypse 
(in which μέν is not used throughout). Hence it is probable that, as 
we saw above (9 p. 363 sq.) in the case of δέ so here, μέν first found its 
way into the text by the aid of (Grecizing) copyists; see particularly 


a 


§ 149.] μέν. 865 


in the recent editions, Mark i. 8; ix. 12 Ταῦ, (cf. Matt. xvii. 11), Acts 
v. 23; 2 Cor. iv. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 20 var.; Matt. xxv.33 var. Whether 
in Rom. vi. 21 also (τὸ μὲν yap τέλος etc.) μέν is to be expunged [so 
Tdf. Treg. in text, with x*], because the following νυνὶ δέ does not 
correspond with it, is much to be doubted. Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 4 in b) 
below. 

B. § 149, τι. 18; H. ὃ 862,1a.; D. §§ 562; 567; J. ὃ 765, 7 sq. 

Mév. Every clause with μέν to which no following clause 
with δέ corresponds, is properly to be regarded as an anacolu- 
thon. Nevertheless, most of the instances of this sort which 
occur in the N. T. admit (as in the classics) of being referred 
to certain classes, of which the most evident, perhaps, are the 
following : 

a) Instead of δέ a different adversative particle is substituted ; thus 
ἀλλά in Acts iv. 16; Rom. xiv. 20; 1 Cor. xiv. 17; πλήν in Luke 
xxii. 22, even καί, see 8 Ὁ) p. 361 sq., and on ὃ wey... καὶ ἄλλο and 
the like § 126, 3 p. 102. 

b) In enumerations the particle is often dropped in the second 
member when it is sufficiently marked as such by some other word, 
particularly by ἔπειτα, as John xi. 6; Jas. iii. 17; similarly 1 Cor. 
xii. 28,— yet here the anacoluthon is stronger, the writer continuing 
his enumeration (instead of with the pronominal ods δὲ) by means of 
the adverbial expressions πρῶτον, ἔπειτα, etc. In like manner δὲ is 
wanting with ἄλλοι after of μέν in many mss. [Sin. also] in John vii. 
12 Tdf. (cf. 9 p. 263). In 1 Cor. iii. 4 ἐγὼ μέν is immediately followed 
indeed by ἕτερος δέ, but the two corresponding terms are strictly ris 
and ἕτερος ; yet this slight inaccuracy does not mar the perspicuity of 
the whole. 

c) Sometimes the first member of the antithesis is marked by μέν, 
but the subsequent δέ was of necessity dropped because the writer 
suddenly chose another construction which did not permit the 
addition of δέ: thus Acts iii. 18 where the antithesis is contained in 
the participial clause (ἐκείνου κρίναντος), xxvii. 21 where the antithesis 
is indicated by the more forceful καὶ τὰ viv in the 22d verse; so it is 
in Heb. xii. 9 by ov πολὺ μᾶλλον. 

4) Sometimes the first member, marked by πρῶτον μέν, has no cor- 
responding ἔπειτα, or other construction in its stead, the writer having 
lingered so long over the first member that he loses the grammatical 
sequence of thought, as Actsi.1; Rom. i. 8; iii. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 18; 
but the same thing happens also without any such reason, the writer 
leaving it to the reader alone to complete the antithesis begun (the 
completion being sometimes plainly suggested by the context) 
and beginning a new thought which has a greater claim upon him: 


866 PARTICLES. [8149 


see e.g. Acts iii. 21; xix. 4 Tdf. [ed. 8 om. μέν; so cod. Sin.]; xxviii. 
22; Rom. vii.12; x.1; xi. 13 Tdf. [ed. 8 adds otv; so Lchm. Treg. ], 
2 Cor. xii. 12; Col. ii. 23; Heb. vi. 16 Tdf. [ed. 8 om. μέν; so cod. 
Sin.]. Now since the copyists in such passages easily took offence at 


814 μέν owing to the missing δέ, we find occurring here just the opposite 


13 


of what was described in 11 p. 364, viz. the omission of μέν in the 
mss.; see Acts iii. 13; xix.4; Rom. xi.13; Heb. vi.16. On μὲν οὖν 
see 16 p. 370. 


Β. § 149, m. 15; H. 88 858. 859; C. §§ Τ01 ἃ. 6.; 118. ο.; J. §§ 775; 776. 


Οὐδέ, μηδέ" οὔτε, μήτε. a) The rule, that the double 
conjunction οὐδέ (μηδέν .. . οὐδέ (μηδέ) can only appear in 
continuation of an antecedent simple negative and to 
connect a new (negative) clause, is found confirmed in the 
N. T. almost throughout ; see Matt. vi. 26; xii. 19; x. 9, 10; 
Mark xiii. 32; Luke xiv. 12; John i. 13, 25; Rom. xiv. 21; 
Col. ii. 21; 1 Thess. ii. 3 Lehm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.], Rev. 
v. 83 vii. 16; ix. 4. 

Hence, examples to the contrary must either be so explained that 
the first negative is copulative and connects the entire sentence with 
what precedes, making reference to some negatived portion of the 
same (and so does not mean neither, but also not), as Gal. i. 12 Lehm. 
[Treg. cod. Sin.] (cf. p. 367 note), —or the negative stands for ne... 
quidem, as Mark viii. 26 (μηδὲ εἰσέλθῃς ... μηδὲ εἴπῃς) is interpreted, 
see Meyer; yet the received reading here seems critically to be still 
quite unsettled, see Fritzsche in loc. and Lchm. praef. p.44. In Vat. 
Sin. and a few other mss. the second clause is wholly wanting, and 
Sin. has simply μή instead of the first μηδέ; Tdf. has now [ed. 8} 
adopted this reading. In this way certainly we get rid of all difficulties. 

What holds true of the double conjunction, holds also for the simple 
οὐδέ (μηδέ), inasmuch as in the signification and not (not ne... 
quidem) it invariably forms the continuation of an antecedent negative, 
as well in sentences and larger portions of sentences, as with single 
words. Examples abound: Matt. vi. 25, 28; Luke x. 4; xii. 24, 33; 
Acts iv. 18; ix. 9; Rom. ix. 16; 2 Tim.i. 8; Gal. i. 1; 2 Pet. i. 8; 
Heb. ix. 12; xili. 5, ete. 


b) On the other hand, the double conjunction οὔτε (μήτε, 
... οὔτε (μήτεν, as a negatived καί... καί, stands as well with 
entire sentences as particular parts of sentences, sometimes 
without a previous negative, sometimes with a preceding 
negative; in this latter case, the members negatived by οὔτε 
(μήτε) constitute es a rule a composite whole within the 


§ 149.] οὔτε... οὔτε, 9607 


limits of a sentence already negatived,—-not a con- 
tinuation of that sentence, (just as we say, not:... neither... 
nor ). 


Examples: without an antecedent negative, Matt. vi. 20; xi. 
18; Mark xiv. 68 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.], John v.37; Acts xv. 
10; Rom. viii. 38; 1 Cor. iii. 7; viii. 8; Rev. iii. 15, etc. ; with 
an antecedent negative, 2 Thess. ii. 2 εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς 
μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι, μήτ ε διὰ πνεύματος μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτ ε δι᾿ ἐπιστολῆς, 
Matt. v. 8454.) xii. 82; Luke ix. 3; Jas. v. 12, and according to 
preponderant Ms. authority [ Sin. also] Acts xxiii. 8 Lchm. ['Treg. Tdf.], 
ἄγγελον and πνεῦμα then constituting the two members (τὰ ἀμφότερα) 
of the negative partition. With the (more difficult and probable) 
reading μηδὲ etc., the two members of the partition are to be taken 
differently, see the note below. But in John i. 25 the reading now 
is οὐκ... οὐδέ... οὐδέ, according to rule. 

Consequently a single οὔτε (μήτε) after a preceding simple negative 
(od, οὐδείς) is, strictly taken, incorrect; since οὔτε contains no con- 
tinued negation. And, in point of fact, recent criticism has enabled 315 
us to set aside on Ms. authority several such instances, see e.g. Mark 
iii. 20; v.3; xiv. 68 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.], Acts iv. 12; 1 Cor. 
iii. 2; Eph. iv. 27; Rev. xii.8; xx. 4, etc. Where it occurs, we 
must of necessity supply an additional οὔτε after the first negative, as 
in Rey. v. 4 οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό 
where the parallel denial of both clauses (ἀνοῖξαι... βλέπειν) is evident, 
and so an οὔτε is to be supplied before ἀνοῖξαι. Hence in vs. 3 also 
οὔτε is to be read with Lchm.|[T.Tr. Sin.] before βλέπειν, inasmuch as 
it is only in this way that the two members ἀνοῖξαι... βλέπειν separate 
themselves perspicuously and plainly from the preceding οὐδέ... οὐδέ. 


1 Where it is not possible to supply an οὔτε, the first (simple) negative must 
directly take the place of οὔτε or μήτε (cf. Klotz ad Devar. II p. 709). This 
ease, however, occurs only extremely seldom, and is in every instance accompanied 
by considerable variation in the mss., and consequently in the editions also. Thus, 
in the above passage from Mark (xiv. 68), Tdf. in his 7th ed. reads οὐκ οἷδα οὔτε 
ἐπίσταμαι, but in his 8th ed. οὔτε... οὔτε again after codd. Vat. and Sin.; the 
reading of cod. B in Luke vii. 33 (uh... μήτε) is not adopted; and in Rev. ix. 20 
(where Lchm. |so Treg.] reads οὔτε μετενόησαν), Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] has restored the 
correct reading ov μετεν. (for which it would be still better to read [so T.] with cod. 
Sin. οὐδέ) Jas. iii. 12 has been corrupted (see Lchm. 1. pref. p. xliv). But when 
οὐδέ (μηδέ) is followed by an οὔτε (μήτε), the οὐδέ negatives (and connects) 
the entire sentence, and before the first predicate or mem}2r an οὔτε is to be 
supplied, as in the above passages (cf. Hartung I. p. 201). Thus Gal. i. 12 Tdf. 
οὐδὲ yap ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου (sc. οὔτε) παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην. In Acts 
xxiii. 8, with the reading μηδὲ ἄγγελον μήτε πνεύμα (so Tdf. eds. 2, 7, yet see 
above) the two notions ἄγγελον and πνεῦμα are combined into a single main 
idea (in connection with which the omission of μήτε before ἄγγελον was very 


368 PARTICLES. [8 149. 


6) If the second or any following member is positive, οὔτέ 
(μήτε) ... τε is used (as in Latin neque ... et) according tc 
the grammatical rule ; as, 

Acts xxvii. 20 μήτε ἡλίου μήτε ἄστρων... χειμῶνός τε ete. Some- 
times we find the less classic combination (see Klotz ad Devar. II. 
p. 714; App. B. C.1, 29; Jos. B. J. 1,13, 6; 2, 18, 5) οὔτε... kat, 
3 John 10 οὔτε αὐτὸς ἐπιδέχεται τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ ... κωλύει καὶ ... 
ἐκβάλλει, John iv. 11 οὔτε ἄντλημα ἔχεις καὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἐστὶν βαθύ. 

d) From this last-named construction we must carefully 
distinguish the usage according to which «ai stands after a 
simple negative (ov, un, — but also after οὐδείς, μήποτε, μήπως, 
etc.) and connects the following clause so closely with the 
preceding clause (already negatived) that it is brought with 
the latter under the influence of the same negative, so that 

816 καί then takes completely the place of the οὐδέ (μηδέ) used by 
the Greeks under such circumstances. 

See Matt. x. 38; vii.6; xiii. 15; x. 26; Luke xii. 2,58; John xii. 
40; 1 Thess. iii. 5; Heb. xii. 15; Rev. vi. 6, ete. 

When the second clause with καί is affirmative, the clauses do 
not belong directly together, and accordingly it is better to separate 
them by one of the larger punctuation marks; as, Heb. xii. 5; Rev. 
xii. 8,9: Cf. ὁ). 

e) On the other hand, if after a preceding affirmative 
clause the following clause uniting with it to form a single 
thought is to be negatived, only καὶ ov, καὶ μή can be 
employed, since οὐδέ (meaning and not) and οὔτε uniformly 
assume an antecedent negation. And here it is to be noticed, 
that this combination is introduced when the antithesis is the 
strongest (just because the antithesis is contained in the neg- 
ative) ; the weaker contrast, on the contrary, is given by ἀλλ᾽ 
ov, ἀλλὰ μή, because ἀλλά, on the other hand, is the particle 
which acquires the sharpest adversative force (but, Germ. 


natural) and constitute by virtue of the negative μηδὲ the continuation of the 
first (uh εἶναι ἀνάστασιν) ; so that then the τὰ ἀμφότερα following can congru- 
ously refer back to the two main ideas (resurrection and belief in spirits) thus 
separated. But in 1 Thess. ii. 3 the double οὐδέ is decidedly to be preferred, with 
Lchm. [Tieg. Tdf. cod. Sin.]. The combination οὔτε ... οὐδέ (see Klotz 1.6. 
p- 714) is anacoluthic, like μὲν... καί and the like, and does not oevur in the 
N. T. except once in Acts ii. 31 cod. Vat. (not Sin.). But after a double οὔτε... 
οὔτε the negative οὐδέ (i.e. and not or not even) can very well make its appearance 
again in continuation of the sentence thus negatived; as, Luke xx. 35 Lchm, 
[Treg.], Acts xxiv. 13 Lchm. [Tdf. cod. Sin.]. On this cf. ἢ) below. 


8149. : οὐδέ; ἀλλά. 869 


sondern) after a preceding negative clause, inasmuch as it 
introduces the following affirmative and sets it over against 
the negative. 


Examples are very frequent: Johni. 20 ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, 
Luke i. 20 ἔσῃ σιωπῶν καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος λαλῆσαι, Rom. xii. 14 εὐλογεῖτε 
καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθε, Matt. xxv. 42-44; xi. 17; xiii. 17; xxii. 3; xxiii. 
3; John i. 5,10,11; iii. 10, 11,12, 20; Luke iii. 8; vi. 37 etc., Rom. 
iii. 8; iv. 19 ete., Jas. i. 22, ete. — examples of ἀλλ᾽ οὐ, John iii. 8 
TO πνεῦμα πνεῖ... ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται etC., xiii. 10 ὑμεῖς καθαροί 
ἐστε, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ πάντες ete. 

But when καὶ οὐ or καὶ μή is introduced after ἃ negatived sentence, 
the two sentences do not stand in a corresponsive relation, but are 
to be regarded more as independent sentences or clauses; as, Matt. 
xv. 32; Luke xii. 29; xviii. 2, etc. Cf. d). 


f) When a single ovdé (as a rule in the midst of a 
sentence and without a preceding negative) contains an 
emphatic denial of the notion with which it is connected, 
it means not even (ne ... quidem); as, Matt. vi. 29; Luke 
vil. 9; Acts xix. 2; 1 Cor. iii. 2; v. 1, etc. 


Even after an antecedent negative it is possible to use this οὐδέ 
if no ambiguity arises, since similar negatives when multiplied do not 
destroy each other; as, Luke xviii. 13 οὐκ ἤθελεν οὐδὲ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς 
ἐπᾶραι. But whether in deteriorating Greek οὔτε is used, through 
negligence, instead of this οὐδέ, is a question that needs further investi- 
gation; the mss. of the N. T. often exhibit it instead of οὐδέ, and Tdf. 
has now adopted it several times into the text (see Luke xii. 26 [ed. 
7; ed. 8 οὐδέ, with Lchm. Treg. cod. Sin.], xx. 86 [so cod. Sin.], Mark 
iii. 20 [so cod. Sin.], and cf. v. 3 var., Theophilus ad Autol. 3. 29; 
Achil. Tat. 10. 20). 


Β. § 149, m.16; H. § 868; C. § 701 b. N.; D. § 548 (1); J. § 773. 


᾿Αλλά. As ἐπεί, according to no. 5 above p. 859, sometimes has the 14 
signification for otherwise, so ἀλλά in John xiii. 10 οὐκ ἔχει χρείαν ἢ 
τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν καθαρὸς ὅλος means but otherwise. The 317 
special sense of οὐ (μὴ) ... ἀλλά has already been discussed ὃ 148, 14 
Ρ. 355. The combination od yap ἀλλά (no; but etc.) occurs in Acts 
xvi. 37. On the elliptical ἀλλά after negative sentences see ὃ 151, 

23 0) p. 392. 


In the combination of particles οὐ μόνον ... ἀλλὰ καί, the 


καί (as is the case with etiam in Latin) is sometimes omitted, 


and in this way the equipoise of the members is destroyed and 
47 


370 PARTICLES. - [8148 


the emphasis falls on the second part; (see Klotz ad Devar. 
Ἐν 10). 

This relation of the two parts of the sentence is plainly indicated 
by the adjunct πολὺ μᾶλλον in Phil. ii. 12; but it is evident also with- 
out any adjunct, as Acts xix. 26 Ταῦ. ['Treg. cod. Sin.] οὐ μόνον ᾿Εφέσου 
ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν πάσης ᾿Ασίας (where the addition of καί is very probably 
chargeable to the emendation of copyists), 1 John v. 6 οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι 
μόνον, GAN ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι. On the elliptical od μόνον δέ 


see ὃ 151, 23f) p. 299. 


B. 8149, m. 17; H. $870; C. 88 701j.; 708¢.¢.; D. § 618; J. §§ 786; 872i. 

15 ΨΤάρ. An example from the N. T. of γάρ in direct question 
(then).is John vii. 41 μὴ yap ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ὃ Χριστὸς ἔρχεται; 80 
often after strict interrogatives, as τί yap Matt. xxvii. 23; πῶς γὰρ 
Acts viii. 31, etc. To the elliptical use of γάρ (as it occurs so 
often in Greek authors, see the Grammars) many passages belong, 
(see the same in Wahl sub voce); as, Acts xxii. 26; 2 Cor. ii. 17; 
Jas. iv. 14 Tdf. [ Treg. ]. 


B. § 149, m. 18; H. § 866; ΟἹ § 686 ο.; D. p. 571; J. § 787. 

16 Odv. The particle οὖν, which in general likes to append 
itself to other words, appears very often so closely connected 
with μέν as to blend with it, as it were, into a single particle. 
If now (as happens most frequently by far), no δέ answers to 
this μὲν οὖν, the μὲν is not the corresponsive particle but a 
shorter form of μήν (as in μέντοι ; hence in Greek authors 
the confirmatory combinations πάνυ μὲν οὖν, κομιδῆ μὲν οὖν 
(see Hartung II. p. 393). This μὲν οὖν is ἃ favorite particle 
in transitions; and even when subsequently a clause with δέ 
follows, this clause by no means always stands in a corresponsive 
relation to the preceding, but simply continues the narration. 


Luke often uses μὲν οὖν in this genuine classic way, particularly in 
the Acts (see Wahl). In the Gospel, on the other hand, it appears 
very rarely ; so too in the other Gospels, (in Matt. not at all, in Mark 
doubtful). In the Epistles, too, it is often employed in the conclusion 
as a strengthened οὖν and without a following δέ Among the ex- 
amples see especially Acts i. 18; xvii.30; xxiii. 22; xxvi. 4,9; Rom. 
xi. 18 Lehm. [Tdf. cod. Sin.], 1 Cor. vi. 4,7; Phil. iii. 8 (ἀλλὰ μὲν 
ovv), Heb. vii. 11; ix. 1. 

318 Τὸ μὲν οὖν, become thus a single particle, the particle ye is some- 


1 On the other hand, the μὲν δή so often used in argument by Greek authors in 
the same sense, and without δέ, nowhere appears. 


8149. μενοῦνγε; νή; ἄρα. 871 


times appended for still greater unity: wevodvye. This contains a 
correction of the preceding thought, and, at the same time, a con- 
firmation of the following, but with a certain ironical tone: 7mmo vero, 
yea verily. But the placing of this compound particle at the 
beginning of the sentence is quite unclassical (hence censured 
severely by Phrynichus p. 342 [ed. Lob.], and perhaps peculiar to the 
Alex. dialect only, cf. Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 203): Luke xi. 28; Rom. 
i 20; x. 18. 

dpa, οὐκοῦν. On the interrogative dpa, and the other N. T. in- 
terrogatives, see ὃ 139, 55 p. 247; and on οὐκοῦν (then, therefore, ergo) 
ibid. p. 249. 


B. § 149, m. 28; H. ὃ 852, 14; C. §476d.sq.; D. p.570; J. § 738. 
The particle of swearing vy occurs but once, and then in Greek 
fashion with the Acc.: 1 Cor. xv. 81. In another passage (ix. 15) it 
is a conjecture of Lachmann’s (II. pref. p. xii.). 


B. § 149, m. 26; H. §865; C. ὃ 686 ο.; Ὁ. §§ 548 (4); 604; J. ὃ 789; W. p. 4448q. (414); 
S. p. xevi. 


"Apa. The question whether the conclusive particle ἄρα can 
begin a sentence, whether it then should be written dpa or dpa 
(ef. 8 159, 55 p. 247), does not affect — at least as a question — 
the N. T. For although dpa is often placed after some other 
word or words, yet its standing first in thts form (cf. the Lat. 
igitur) is no longer a subject of doubt, indeed, is already in 
such general use that even Luke and the author of the Ep. to 
the Heb. no longer take offence at it. 


Examples of this use, especially at the beginning of an apodosis, 
are, Matt. xii. 28; Luke xi. 20,48; 1 Cor. xv. 18; 2 Cor. v.15; Heb. 
iv. 9; xii. 8, etc. Peculiar to Paul is dpa strengthened by οὖν: dpa 
οὖν (never with the accent thrown back), in which strengthened form 
it is found standing only in the first place; as, Rom. v. 18; vii. 3, 25 
etc., Gal. vi. 10; Eph. ii. 19; 1 Thess. v.6; 2 Thess. ii. 15.1 Another 
extension of the particle takes place by means of ye, rather in a re- 
strictive sense, — standing first: Matt. vii. 20; xvii. 26; Acts xi. 18 
Tdf. [ed. 8 drops ye, with Lchm. Treg. cod. Sin.]; following: Acts 
xvii. 27 (see ὃ 199, 62 p. 256). It is the uniform and settled practice 


1 The same combination of particles occurs likewise at the beginning of sen- 
tences (but written ἄρ᾽ οὖν) often in the best prose writers, and in sentences which 
contain no question ; as, Plato, Gorg. p. 460 ο. 477 a.; Charm. 159b.; Euthyph. 
p. 5a.; Prot. p. 313c.; Xen. Cyr. 4, 3, 8, ete. Although the form of an inter- 
rogation may underlie such sentences, yet perhaps, considering the original identity 
of the two particles (cf. Klotz ad Devar. II. p. 167), it is preferable even here tc 
write ἄρ᾽ οὖν in order to distinguish them from actual questions with Gp. οὖν 
(Theaet. p. 188 a. c.; Gorg. 449 e., etc.). 


1 


15 


372 PARTICLES. [8 150 


in the N. T. to write dpa in the conclusive sense, and dpa in the 
interrogative. 


B. § 149, m, 27; H. § 867, 4; C. 8 120; Ὁ. p.572; J. 8 790. 

19 Tou The particle τοίνυν stands second, as in Greek authors, in 
1 Cor. ix. 26; first, in Heb. xiii. 13, and doubtfully [yet Tdf. Treg. 
cod. Sin. first] in Luke xx. 25. Lob. ad Phryn. p. 342 adduces several 
examples of this later usage. 


B. $150, τα, 4; ἘΠ §8480,; C. §717g.; Ὁ. pp. 671, 578; J. $§ 762, 2; 891, 5b. 

1 Οὐχ ὅτι. In the N.T. also there is an elliptical combination 

οὐχ ὅτι, but it differs wholly both as respects origin and sig- 

819 nification from the combination in use by classic writers 

(especially Plato). For whereas the classic phrase assumes 

in every case a negative notion, like ἐξ makes no difficulty that 

etc. (hence its predicate is to be taken again in a positive 

sense, and οὐχ ὅτι to be translated although, quamquam, e.g. 

Plat. Prot. p. 886 Σωκράτη ἐγγυῶμαι μὴ ἐπιλήσεσθαι, οὐχ ὅτι 

παίζει καί φησιν ἐπιλήσμων εἶναι), with οὐχ ὅτι in the N. T. 

a positive notion, like J do not mean to say that etc., must be 

supplied ; so that the predicate belonging to οὐχ ὅτι is sharply 

negatived, and receives in the clause following with ἀλλά, 
δέ, εἰ μή its positive antithesis. 


For example, John vi. 46 οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακέν τις εἰ μὴ ὃ dv 
παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα, Vii. 22; 2 Cor. i. 24 ; iii. 
5; Phil. iii. 12; ἵν. 17 οὐχ ὅτι ἐπιζητῶ τὸ δόμα, ἀλλὰ ἐπιζητῶ ete., 
2 Thess. iii. 9. The same ellipsis underlies all passages, and hence 
must be applied also to Phil. iv. 11: οὐχ ὅτι καθ᾽ ὑστέρησιν λέγω, literally 
I do not mean to say that I make this declaration in consideration of 
my straitened condition i.e. briefly I do not say this etc. 

Remark. The ellipsis in οὐχ οἷον ὅτι, in Rom. ix. 6 οὐχ οἷον δὲ 
ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν ὁ λόγος Tod θεοῦ, is more difficult. In default of parallel 
instances in the N. T. (the numerous passages, too, quoted by Wetstein 
from classic writers are essentially different), the force of this com- 
bination of particles must be derived solely from the context. As 
commonly in such cases, many different interpretations have been 
brought forward; see the commentaries. Among them all, the must 
probable assumption seems to be this: that the phrase arose from 
blending two formulas (see Meyer and Fritzsche in loc.), viz. οὐχ οἷον 
followed by a finite verb, and the above οὐχ ὅτι. But this οὐχ οἷον, 
again, is not to be identified with the οὐχ οἷον used in the classics 
instead of οὐχ ὅπως in the sense of not only not (see B.m. 2), but is 


§ 150.] ὅσος; ἄλλος. 373 


without doubt the one sharply censured by Phrynichus p. 372 as a 
solecism (ἐν τῇ ἡμεδαπῇ ; Phrynichus was an Asiatic) and explained 
by ov δήπου, μὴ δήπου" (by no means). This signification, united to 
that of οὐχ ὅτι given above, gives as the meaning of the passage from 
Paul, by no means do I intend (vss. 1-4) to say, that God's 
word has come to naught ete. 


B. § 150, m. 8; C. §556d.; J. § 816, 89. 
ὅσος. Perhaps in imitation of the expression chosen by the LXX 2 
in Isa. xxvi. 20 (ἀποκρύβηθι μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον), we find the same turn 
in Heb. x. 37 ἔτι yap μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ od χρονιεῖ 
(the second part, too, an imitation of Hab. ii. 8). This idiom is also 
not without parallels in Greek authors (Ar. Vesp. 213 τί οὐκ ἀπεκοιμή- 
θημεν ὅσον ὅσον στίλην, Arrian. Ind. 29. 15 ὀλίγοι δὲ αὐτῶν σπείρουσιν 
ὅσον [ὅσον] τῆς χώρης). In the passage before us an ellipsis of the 
predicate εἶναι is commonly assumed, so that with 6 ἐρχόμενος the 
conclusion may be said to begin. Yet in view of the above parallels, 
and of the single μικρὸν or ὀλίγον ὅσον used in the same way (see 
Wetstein in loc.), it is probably better to put no stop after ὅσον, but 320 
to connect the expression immediately with ἥξει as an adverbial 
adjunct. Compare here the observation made in connection with the 
constructions of ἐγένετο (8 141, 6, b) p. 277), that when such a con- 
sequent clause begins without καί, the predicate is wont to stand 
before the subject. Accordingly, since the subject stands first here, 
in case the second clause were to be taken as a conclusion an additional 
καί would probably have stood before it; just as is the fact in John 
xiv. 19 ἔτι μικρὸν, καὶ ὃ κόσμος pe οὐκέτι θεωρεῖ, xvi. 16 μικρὸν καὶ 
οὐ θεωρεῖτέ με, where the second clause is necessarily taken as a 
conclusion. 
B. 8.160, m. 12; H. 588 e.; C. §567¢.; J. $714 Obs. 2. 
ἄλλος. To the familiar use of ἄλλος with objects of a different 3 
kind (ἄνδρες καὶ ai ἄλλαι γυναῖκες), Luke xxiii. 32 ἤγοντο καὶ ἕτεροι 
δύο κακοῦργοι σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι has been compared. But the 
passage does not present a grammatical parallel, since a reporter 
in the strict spirit of the law could hardly express himself otherwise 
under the circumstances. Moreover, the hearer’s feelings, injured 
possibly by the expression, are straightway appeased by the words in 
the following verse (ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς κακούργους). On the 
recourse that has been had to the same idiom to explain ἕτερον in Gal. 
i. 19 (ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ 
Κυρίου), out of immoderate solicitude respecting the facts of history, 
see the recent commentaries, and cf. Luke x. 1. 


874 GAN ἤ when ν; ἐν τοῖς; ἀρξάμενος. [§ 150, 


B. § 160, m. 18; H. 8 868 ο.; C. 8 701m. and N.; J. ὃ 778, 5. 

A ἀλλ᾽ ἤ. Not only is there an example in the N. T.— Luke xii. 51 
οὐχὶ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ (sc. παρεγενόμην Sodvat) διαμερισμόν ----οὗ the 
ordinary use of ἀλλ᾽ ἤ (nisi, unless, except), but also of the less usual 
(cf. B. p. 441 note) where in the preceding clause another and ad- 
ditional ἄλλος is expressed; as, 2 Cor. i. 13 od γὰρ ἄλλα γράφομεν 
ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἃ ἀναγινώσκετε etc. But in 1 Cor. iii. 5 diplomatic 
authority [cod. Sin. also] is opposed to the adoption of ἀλλ᾽ 7. 


B. § 150, m, 20; H. ὃ 721 b.; C. § 688 g.; Ὁ. § 517; J. ὃ 856 Obs. 2. 
5 ὥφελον. This word, in the form ὄφελον, has become in later 
writers and the N. T. completely an unchangeable conjunction. On 
its construction see ὃ 139, 9 and 10 p. 214 sq. 


Β. § 150, τι. 24; H. ὃ 627; C. §512b.; Ὁ. p. 396; J. § 444 Obs. δ. 

6 ἐν tots. Just as this phrase, as a general neuter expression, is 
connected immediately with Feminines, so the same thing is done 
with the (partitive) Genitive πάντων; as in Thuc. 4. 52 τάς τε 
ἄλλας πόλεις καὶ πάντων μάλιστα τὴν “Avravdpov. Other instances of 
the sort in classic writers may be seen in Dorville ad Charit. p. 549 
(571). Here belongs from the N. T. Mark xii. 28 ποία ἐστὶν πρώτη 
πάντων ἐντολή (Rec. πασῶν) ; but in Luke xix. 37 the reading of cod. 
Vat., adopted by Lchm. [Treg.], περὶ πάντων ὧν εἶδον δυνάμεων, is not 
confirmed by cod. Sin. 

On the periphrasis οἱ περί τινα see ὃ 125, 8 p. 95. 


B. § 150, τα. 81; J. § 696 Obs. 1; W. p. 621 (577); p. 688 (588). 

| ἀρξάμενος. By avery natural and easily intelligible brevity 
of expression, this Participle is often joined not only to the 
adverbial adjunct belonging to the idea of commencement 
(amo), but at the same time also to that of the goal (éas) ; 
as, Matt. xx. 8 (ἀπόδος) ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἕως TOV 
πρώτων, Luke xxiii.5; (John viii. 9); Actsi. 22. So, too, 
with the finite verb ἤρξατο, Acts i.1. Another and similar 

821 kind of logically inaccurate expression is Luke xxiv. 27 
ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ Μωυσέως καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν προφητῶν. 

On the other hand, Luke xxiv. 47 Lchm. (γέγραπται) κηρυχθῆναι ... 
μετάνοιαν καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν eis πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ἀρξάμενον ἀπὸ 
Ἱερουσαλήμ. If this reading is genuine, and we should apply to it for sub- 
stance the idiom treated of in B. l.c., we should get the following sense, 
which suits the passage perfectly: that repentance and forgiveness be 
preached among all nations, before all, or first of all, in 
Jerusalem. But the rule that ἀρξάμενος must always agree in form 


§ 150.] ἐθέλειν, 918 


with the subject of the sentence would in that case be disregarded 
here, where μετάνοιαν and ἄφεσιν are subject. Yet it is not improbable 
that this participle — which in this signification is added as a kind of 
adverbial adjunct to the main predicate, so that even the grammatically 
correct case in passages from classic authors is somewhat surprising 
(see the examples in the Gramm.) — was, by frequent use, at length 
changed into an adverb, and hence assumed the form which in such 
cases first offered itself, viz. the Neuter (cf. τυχόν § 145, 8 p. 318). 
This assumption has so much the more in its favor here, as by 
substituting any other termination of the word we should encounter 
still greater grammatical incongruities. The rarity of the expression, 
which occurs only here in this sense, produced many variants. Among 
them that of cod. Vat. ἀρξάμενοι, adopted by Tdf. [Treg.], deserves 
most consideration — (instead of it Tdf. in his ed.-7 read -voy again, 
but in ed. 8 he has with cod. Sin. restored -vo. again) — and is to 
be explained as an absol. Partic. referring to ἔθνη, according to § 123, 
5 p. 78 and § 129, 8b) p. 130. 


B. § 150, m. 36; C. $598. 

θέλειν. Since the trisyllabic form of this verb — which 
in Greek authors when joined with an Infin. often serves as a 
periphrasis for the adverb (willingly, voluntarily) with a finite 
verb — does not occur in the N. T. (p. 57), the attempt has 
sometimes been made there to extend the same mode of inter- 
pretation to θέλειν. 

The chief demand for this extension is presented by John vi. 21 
(ἤθελον οὖν λαβεῖν etc.), partly in view of the representation made by 
Matt. and Mark, partly because if the matter stopped with mere 
willing, the narrative seems defective and incomplete. But, on the 
other hand, the interpretation they did it willingly does not cor- 
respond with the preceding ἐφοβήθησαν ; for this leads us to expect 
the idea of emboldened, joyful, which does not lie in ἤθελον. Correetly, 
therefore, has Liicke acknowledged a diversity in the narrative of 
John (a diversity which may be detected here in other particulars 
also), and taken θέλειν in its proper signification ; which it has, more- 
over, in all the other passages that have been brought under this 
head. For everywhere the rendering ‘to like, be inclined, to do, is 
perfectly sufficient, as in John viii. 44; Mark xii. 38 where περιπατεῖν 
is the simple object of θέλειν like the following ἀσπασμούς etc., Luke 
xx. 46 where θελόντων corresponds to the synonymous φιλούντων that 
follows. 

Remark. The case is different with the Participle θέλων when 
it is used absolutely (i.e. without an Infin. following) referring to a 


816 ΠΑΤΤΕΔΟΤΙΟΝ. : [δ 151. 


noun, and the Infin. of the verb which is the predicate in the sentence 

822 must be supplied (cf. § 151, 23 b) p. 392). In this way arises a sig- 
nification of θέλων which we, if we choose to express ourselves in the 
same brief manner, best reproduce by the adverb purposely; as, 
2 Pet. iii. 5 λανθάνει αὐτοὺς τοῦτο θέλοντας (sc. τοῦτο αὐτοὺς λανθάνειν) 
they purposely know not i.e. they choose not to know, Col. ii. 18 μηδεὶς 
ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω θέλων (sc. καταβραβεύειν ὑμᾶς) ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ 
etc. Yet in both passages various other interpretations have been 
attempted (see the Commentaries); and in the latter passage, especially, 
reference has been made to the usage of the LXX. who are ac- 
customed to render the Hebrew 3 pam by θέλειν ἔν τινι (e.g. 1 Sam, 
xviii. 22; 2 Sam. xv. 26; 1 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix. 8). But the 
absence of other precedents for this use of θέλειν in the N. T., as well 
as the circumstance that the Dative with ἐν in the O. T. is always 
personal (ἐν goé), restricts us to the first interpretation. 


CERTAIN PECULIAR KINDS OF CONSTRUCTION. 
I. ATTRACTION. 
B. § 151, 1. 6; J. § 898, 2; W. pp. 626 sq. (581 sq.). 

1 To facilitate a survey of the subject, we discuss fully in this 
place a syntactic phenomenon which reappears in many kinds 
of sentences, viz. the practice, very common in Greek, of sub- 
joining the subject of a dependent declarative sentence to 
the main predicate to be governed as an object. By this 
means the great advantage accrues, that the two sentences can 
be melted in this way in substance and in form completely 
into one sentence! As the subject is rendered sufficiently 
familiar by the general grammars, we will content ourselves 
here with a classification of the numerous examples in the 
N. T. The construction occurs 

a) In sentences with ὅτε, after verba dicendi, sentiendi, etc., very 
often in all parts of the N. T.; as, Matt. xxv. 24 ἔγνων σε ὅτι σκληρὸς 
εἶ ἄνθρωπος, 1 Cor. xvi. 15 οἴδατε τὴν οἰκίαν Srehava, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀπαρχή 
δίο., John viii. 54 ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστίν, iv. 35; ix. 19; 
v. 42; Mark xii. 34; Acts iii. 10; iv. 18; xiii. 32; 1 Cor. iii. 20; 
Rev. xvii. 8, etc.; also after ἔχειν in the sense of to hold for, regard as, 
Mark xi. 32 εἶχον τὸν Ἰωάννην ὄντως ὅτι προφήτης jv. For emphasis’ 
sake the subject may be repeated in the subordinate clause by 
means of the Demonst. Pron. οὗτος (not αὐτός, cf. ὃ 144, 21 p. 306), 
Acts ix. 20 ἐκήρυσσεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ vids τοῦ θεοῦ. If 

1 Hence it is an erroneous practice to separate by punctuation marks, out of 


regard for our style of expression, what the language so evidently combines into 
one whole. ; 


§ 151.] ATTRACTION. 377 


the predicate is a Passive, the Nominative is used with it, ie. the 323 
personal construction is introduced, though instances of this 

are very rare in the N. T.: 1 Cor. xv. 12 εἰ Χριστὸς κηρύσσεται ἐκ 
νεκρῶν ὅτι ἐγήγερται. 

b) In indirect questions after the same verbs; as, Mark i. 
24; Luke iv. 34 οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, Acts xv. 36 ἐπισκεψώμεθα τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς 
πῶς ἔχουσιν, John vii. 27; xiii. 28; Luke xix. 3; cf. the examples in 
§ 139, 57 B. p. 250. That in 2 Cor. xiii. 5 (ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε, εἰ ἐστὲ 
ἐν τῇ πίστει) the clauses are rather to be construed separately, is 
shown by the antecedent position of ἑαυτούς, so that ἑαυτούς is simply 
the object of πειράζετε, just as ἑαυτοὺς δοκιμάζετε. 

c) Rarely in sentences with ἵνα, when according to N. T. usage 
after certain predicates (§ 139, 43 p. 238) it takes the place of the 
Infinitive elsewhere in use, as Rev. iii. 9 ποιήσω αὐτοὺς ἵνα ἥξουσιν καὶ 
προσκυνήσουσιν ... καὶ γνῶσιν etc.; and with μή in sentences ex- 
pressing anxiety, as Acts v.26; Gal. iv. 11, on both which passages 
see ὃ 139, 48 p. 242. That Gal. vi. 1 (σκοπῶν σεαυτὸν, μὴ καὶ σὺ 
πειρασθῇς) cannot be brought under this head, follows from the rep- 
etition of the subject (ov), and from the signification of the verb 
σκοπεῖν ; on it see ὃ 139, 49 p. 243. 

d) In the spirit of this construction, John, in chap. i. 15, instead 
of using a dependent clause (with ὅτι or in the Infin.), follows at once 
with the direct discourse (on this cf. especially John x. 36 and 
the other similar instances in ὃ 141, 1 p. 272): otros ἦν ὃν εἶπον ὃ 
ὀπίσω prov ἐῤχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν pov γέγονεν, for which subsequently 
(vs. 80) the other and ordinary construction appears: ὑπὲρ οὗ εἶπον " 
ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται etc. 


Β. 8161, 1.8; H. ὃ ef. Slla.; C. ef. $$554d.; 704d.; J. $647 Obs. 1; W. p. 629 (684). 

Of that species of attraction, so common in the classics, 9 
according to which adverbial adjuncts when they belong toa 
noun in the sentence, and especially to the article taking the 
place of a substantive, are attracted by the verb of the 
sentence (e.g. ὁ ἐκεῖθεν πόλεμος δεῦρο ἥξει the war thence 
(there) will come hither), there are several plain instances in 
the N. T. Those which there is adequate reason for bringing 
under this head (for too many have been brought under it, 
ef. p. 70 sq.) are reducible to the two leading classes following: 

a) a reference to the question where is changed into one 
to the question whence; as, _ 

Luke xi. 13 ὁ πατὴρ 6 ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν 
αὐτόν, Acts xv. 88 ἠξίου, τὸν ἀποστάντα ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Παμφυλίας καὶ 

48 


878 ANACOLUTHON. [$ 151, 


μὴ συνελθόντα ... μὴ συμπαραλαμβάνειν τοῦτον (where the interpreta- 
tion away from Pamphylia appears forced), Matt. xxiv. 17 μὴ καταβάτω 
ὧραι τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ (on the other hand, Mark, avoiding the 
attraction, Gpat τι ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ). Col. iv. 16 is to be regarded 
rather as a species of brachylogy: τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας (sc. ἐπιστολὴν) ἵνα 
καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε 1.6. (according to the understanding of almost all 
recent expositors) my letter which is mow in Laodicea and is to 
reach you from thence. But the following cases positively do not 
belong here: Luke xvi. 26 Tdf. ὅπως οἱ θέλοντες διαβῆναι ἔνθεν πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς μὴ δύνωνται, μηδὲ οἱ ἐκεῖθεν (sc. θέλοντες διαβῆναι) πρὸς ἡμᾶς 
διαπερῶσιν, Heb. xiii. 24 ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας with which 

324 may be compared Phil. iv. 22 dom. of ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας (§ 125, 9 
p- 95). In Acts xiv. 26 also ὅθεν has its proper force, and the kind 
of attraction occurring in Matt. xxv. 24, 26 has already been treated 
of § 143, 12 p. 287 sq. 


b) a reference to the question where is or into one 
to the question whither. 


The instances belonging here {πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακράν Acts ii. 39, τοῖς 
εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου Luke ix. 61, 6 εἰς τὸν ἀγρόν Mark xiii. 16) have 
already found their place and explanation § 147, 15 p. 332, and 18 
Ρ. 333. Acts xxii. 5 (ἄξων καὶ rods ἐκεῖσε ὄντας) perhaps may also be 
brought under this head. Yet it is far more probable that ἐκεῖσε here 
stands directly for ἐκεῖ, agreeably to the interchange so often occurring 
with local adverbs (cf. p. 70sq.); it is used in this way not only 
often in the Apocrypha, but also in Greek writers e.g. Polybius, Dio 
Cassius, Themistius, see Lob. ad Phryn. p. 44; Steph. Thes. sub voce. 
The same thing early took place with the local adv. εἴσω (ἔσω), see 
Pape, Steph., and Lob. p. 127; just as, on the other hand, ἐκεῖ and 
ἔνδον answer to the question whither. Examples of ἔσω in the 
relation of rest are Rom. vii. 22; 1 Cor. v. 12; 2 Cor. iv. 16 Lchm. 
(Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.], Eph. iii. 16, with which are to be compared 
John xx. 26 (with εἶναι), Acts v. 23 (with εὕρομεν 56. ὄντα). 


II. ANACOLUTHON. 
B. p. 448 (524); Η. § 886; C. (cf. Ind. sub verb.); Ὁ. § 625; J. § 900. 

3 No figure of speech or species of construction (so far as the 
absence of construction admits of being so called) is more 
current in popular language than Anacoluthon, — sometimes 
in the narrower sense, as an incomplete sentence: proper 
anacoluthon; sometimes in the broader, as an altered 
structure: variatio structure. Indeed, we may say that 
the language of the people, or of an ordinary man, always 


8151. ANACOLUTHON. 379 


abounds more or less in anacoluthon (unconscious and un- 
designed, to besure). Hence the great number of anacoluthic 
thoughts, sentences, periods, in all the writers of the N. T. 
(even those that write the most correctly), since many construc- 
tions of the sort had passed over into the Greek literary usage. 
But we ought to consider only those instances .as belonging to 
a grammatical figure of speech which have actually acquired a 
certain currency in the language, so that they are re- 
peated, either generally or by particular writers; at least it 
is only these that are fit to be discussed in a grammar. But 
all such anacolutha as cannot be regularly classified, — since 
they are the result of the writer’s mood at the moment, and 
are therefore to be explained exclusively or predominantly by 
the context in every case,— can be considered only incidentally, 
and belong strictly, all of them, to exegesis. Many of the 325 
more common anacolutha, or changes of construction (for we 
neglect for practical reasons to separate the two kinds of 
sentences), have already been treated of in this Grammar in 
other places; so that, to avoid repetition, only those instances 
wili receive special consideration which could not easily be 
disposed of elsewhere. We arrange, then, instances of anaco- 
luthon under the following heads: 

a. The simplest and most natural anacoluthon is that which 4 
is known in grammar as the Nominative Absolute in the 
strict sense (to be distinguished from the participial construc- 
tion of the same name, § 144, 13 p. 298). It arises from the 
circumstance, that the speaker or writer begins the sentence 
with a subject immediately before his mind — whether it be 
the Nominative of a substantive, or of an adj. or partic. with 
the article used in its stead, or of a pronoun, —and sub- 
sequently allows the sentence to take such a turn, that the 
idea at the beginning no longer remains the subject, but ought 
to stand in some one of the oblique cases. It is then a very 
common practice to leave the Nominative standing at the head 
of the sentence (which consequently remains unfinished, strictly 
speaking), and in the sequel to refer back to it by a Pronoun 
in the requisite case. 

For example, Acts vii. 40 ὁ Μωυσῆς οὗτος, ὃς ἐξήγαγεν ἡμᾶς ἐκ 
γῆς Αἰγύπτου, οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί ἐγένετο αὐτῷ, Matt. x. 82 πᾶς οὖν ὅστις 
ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ ..., ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ, xii. 86 πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀργὸν 


880 ANACOLUTHON. [§ 151. 


ὃ... ἀποδώσουσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγον, John vi. 89 iva πᾶν, ὃ δέδωκέν μοι, 
μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ (cf. § 127, 82 p. 121 84.), xvii. 2 ἵνα πᾶν ὃ (ie. 
πάντες οὕς, see 8 128,1 p. 122) δέδωκας αὐτῷ, δώσῃ αὐτοῖς etc.; hence 
in xv. 2 also (πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν, αἴρει αὐτό) we are to 
take the words πᾶν κλῆμα not as Accusative but as Nominative, —as 
their repetition by αὐτό shows. On Rom. ix. 10 (Ῥεβέκκα etc) see 
below, 23f) p. 893. So the Participle with the article, as John vii. 38 
ὃ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ... 2) ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ pevoovow etC., 
Rev. ii. 26 (6 νικῶν ... δώσω αὐτῷ), iii. 12, 21; cf. 5 following. 


This usage so agrees with the character of the N. T. style, 
that even when in an inserted subordinate clause the same 
subject accidentally recurs, we can explain the antecedent 
Nominative unhesitatingly by this construction, and are under 
no necessity of construing it into the dependent sentence, and 
so disturbing the natural sequence of the words. 


396 I1Johnii. 27 ὑμεῖς τὸ χρῖσμα, ὃ ἐλάβετε am αὐτοῦ, μένει ἐν ὗ μῖν. 
The rhetorical figure is called forth here by the antithesis in which 
the idea placed first stands to another (viz. ris or of πλανῶντες ὑμᾶς) ; 
and this is elsewhere rendered evident by the addition of μέν and δέ, 
as 1 Cor. xi. 14 ἀνὴρ μὲν, ἐὰν κομᾷ, ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν, γυνὴ δὲ, ἐὰν κομᾷ, 
δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν, ---- γοῦ the position of the words in this passage may 
also be explained according to 18 below, p. 389. 

Similar is Luke xxi. 6 ταῦτα ἃ θεωρεῖτε, ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι ἐν als οὐκ 
ἀφεθήσεται λίθος etc., where a general pronoun precedes, and the more 
definite idea is not stated till afterwards. ; 

5 ReMARK. 1. Numerous instances analogous to the above-given 
examples may be adduced from other Greek writers, from Homer 
down (see among others Bhdy. Syntax p. 68). But it seems to be 
an exception, and in conflict with the genius of the Greek language, 
when the notion that precedes in the Nominative remains the actual 
subject in the construction following, and yet an additional backward 
reference is made by means of the pronoun αὐτός (not οὗτος, on 
which see ὃ 144, 21 p. 306) ;—all the more because this pronoun in 
the Nom. in native Greek writers has only the more pointed 
signification self. The example under this head is Luke xiii. 4 ἐκεῖνοι 
οἱ δέκα καὶ ὀκτώ, ἐφ᾽ ods... , δοκεῖτε ὅτι αὐτοὶ ὀφειλέται ἐγένοντο ete., 
cf. with this the same writer’s usage treated of § 127, 9 p. 107. It 
seems to be exceptional likewise, when the term that precedes stands 
in the oblique case suited to the construction that follows, and yet 
the same case of the pronoun αὐτός recurs as though the Nominative 
had preceded, —an idiom which occurs repeatedly in the Reyv., e.g. 
ii. 7,17 τῷ νικοῦντι ... δώσω αὐτῷ (cf. the examples of a different kind 


§ 151.] ANACOLUTHON. 981 


in 4 p. 380); vi. 4 τῷ καθημένῳ ... ἐδόθη αὐτῷ, but is found elsewhere 
also, as Matt. iv. 16; v. 40, and has its foundation in the copiousness 
of the N. T. language as respects the employment of pronouns, which 
has been often touched upon (see especially ὃ 130, 2 p. 142); ef. 
besides § 145, 2 p. 315. 

Remark 2. Under the head of Nominative Absolute the two 
passages quoted ὃ 131, 13 Ὁ) p. 154 (viz. Rom. viii. 3; Heb. viii. 1) 
may also be brought. It is true that here, as was before remarked, 
the Neuter form in both instances makes it impossible to determine 
the case positively. Yet, since they likewise stand at the beginning 
of the sentence, they are rather to be regarded as Nominatives, after 
the analogy of the examples given above in 4 (especially Luke xxi. 6). 

Remark 3. Quite unparalleled is the placing of an Accusative 
at the beginning (in a similar manner to the Nom. just described) in 
2 Cor. xii. 17 μή τινα, dv ἀπέσταλκα πρὸς ὑμᾶς, du αὐτοῦ ἐπλεονέκτησα 
ὑμᾶς ; where the Accusative (τινα) is subsequently taken up again, or 
rather almost corrected, by the demons. pron. (δ αὐτοῦ). This irregu- 
larity is only explicable by assuming that the apostle, in beginning 
the sentence, had another construction in mind, but subsequently 
abandoned it. Such liberties in construction and loose connection of 
sentences, however, are quite natural in epistolary style (as in con- 
versation) ; see below, especially 10 p. 383 and 12 p. 386. 

b. The structure of periods in Greek depends in great part 
on the artistic management of the various Participial construc- 
tions (§ 144 p. 288sqq.); yet grammatical precision of ex- 
pression was forced sometimes to give way before the demands 
particularly of force and vivacity, or of symmetry. Probably 
most of the instances of (anarthrous) participles used ana- 
coluthically in the Greek writers of the classic period are 
‘to be explained solely by the endeavor to meet these demands ; 
(see B. II. 1.). But, speaking generally, the case is different 
in this respect with the language of the N.T. For, the more its 
diction approximates to the language of the people, which had 
no need of artistically constructed periods, or the less the 
writers were acquainted with the strictly Hellenic culture, 
the more do instances of anacoluthically used Participles 
multiply, without there being any rhetorical purpose involved 
in them. Hence many cases of such anacoluthon are found 
even in the Gospels; but especially in the lawless language of 
the Apocalypse, and in the long periods of Paul’s Epistles, 
which often exceed all bounds, and consequently are deficient 
not infrequently in perspicuity. 


327 


382 ANACOLUTHON. [$ 151. 


In so far as the Participle stands for any reason in a Case 
out of harmony with the leading clause to which it belongs, it 
has already been subjected to a thorough and connected ex- 
amination in § 144, 13 p. 298. In so far, again, as under 
different relations (whether it be that a finite verb is to be 
supplied from the context, or that the construction is subse- 
quently broken off and takes a different turn) it stands 
absolutely, 1.6. without any grammatical connection with 
its leading clause, it has been treated of in the same section, 6 
and 7, p. 292sq. It remains for us to speak here of yet a 
third peculiarity in the employment of Participles — one which 
is pre-eminently peculiar to the biblical language, and consists 
in this: that a participial clause almost imperceptibly passes 
over into a finite verb, consequently is completed after 
the manner of a leading clause, yet without losing its force as a 
participial clause in its relation to the whole sentence. 
Here manifestly the Hebrew idiom (see Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 802; 
Gr. 8 131, Rem. 2) has had great influence, since such con- 
structions are foreign to Greek.! 

No writer in the N. T. is more addicted to this mode of expression 
than John; yet with Paul also the same is not uncommon. For 
example, John i. 32 τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ... καὶ ἔμεινεν 
ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (yet regularly vs. 33), v. 44; 2 John 2 διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν 

328 μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔσται eis τὸν αἰῶνα. In similar anaco- 
luthic style we read, John xv. 5 ὃ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗτος 
φέρει etc., 1 John iii, 24. From Paul’s Epistles: Col. i. 6 Tdf. [eds. 
2,7] τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ παρόντος εἰς tpas..., καὶ ἔστιν καρποφορούμενον 
etc., 26 τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον ... νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη etc., 1 Cor. 
Vil. 37 μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην, ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει, 2 Cor. vi. 9 ὡς ἀποθνήσκοντες 
καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶμεν ete, Eph. i. 20 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] (for the other 
reading καθίσας [Tdf. ed. 8, Treg. cod. Sin.] is probably only a cor- 
rection), On Heb. viii. 10; x. 16 see ὃ 144, 4 a) p. 291; besides ef. 
Luke xix. 2; Rev. ii. 2, 9, 18; iii. 9; ix. 1,17; x. 1, ete. 

9 Remarg. A similar usage to this occurs, when Relative and 
other Subordinate clauses pass over in the same almost 
unnoticed manner into leading clauses, and yet the continuation of 
the sentence so formed (indicated generally by καὶ or δέ) does not 
constitute the real leading clause for the antecedent subordinate clause. 

1 Foreign, inasmuch as we are not in the remotest degree warranted in inferring 
an actual usage from isolated instances of a similar nature arising from negligence 


or other causes; (cf. Thuc. 8, 45,4; 7, 13,2; Plat. Phaedr. p 230d.; Fritzsche, 
Quaest. Luc. p. 112; Lehrs, Arist. p. 75). 


§151.] ANACOLUTHON. 383 


For example: 1 Cor. vii. 13 γυνὴ ἥτις ἔχει ἄνδρα ἄπιστον καὶ οὗτος 
συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν per αὐτῆς, μὴ ἀφιέτω τὸν ἄνδρα, Tit. i. 2, 8 ζωῆς 
αἰωνίου, ἣν ἐπηγγείλατο ὃ θεὸς πρὸ χρόνων ..., ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροῖς 
ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ etc., Rev. xvii. 2. It does not conflict with the 
character of the N. T. diction to suppose this construction to be present 
in many other passages; but the less constrained arrangement of 
words in the ancient languages often prevents the nature of the 
clauses (whether leading or subordinate) from being any longer 
discovered positively. Compare, for example, Mark iv. 16sq., the 
frequent connection of the Subjunctive with the Future (see the ex- 
amples § 139, 7 note p. 211), and the similar use in § 143, 6 p. 283. 
Of a different sort, yet springing from the same principle, is Luke x. 8 
εἰς ἣν δ᾽ ἂν πόλιν εἰσέρχησθε καὶ δέχωνται ὑμᾶς etc., where the 
second clause passes over, not indeed into a leading clause, but into a 
different kind of subordinate clause, as though ἐάν preceded. 

c. This transition from one construction to another, or 
mingling of two different constructions, is often 
to be found in the N. T. writings. Yet most of the instances 
are of so special a nature that it is difficult to distribute them 
under general heads. We confine ourselves, therefore, here, 
to illustrating the method of such mixed constructions by a 
number of the most evident examples. 

Acts xxiv. 18 τινὲς δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ασίας Ἰουδαῖοι, ods ἔδει ἐπὶ σοῦ παρεῖναι 
καὶ κατηγορεῖν, εἴ τι ἔχοιεν. The clause τινὲς δὲ etc. is anacoluthic, 
whether connected with what precedes or not. The anacoluthon is 
occasioned by the Relative clause following, which combines 
logically with the preceding clause into a single thought: but certain 
Asiatic Jews (who saw me there and maltreated me, see xxi. 27 sqq.), 
these ought to have appeared etc. In quite the same way an anacolu- 
thon is produced by a Relative clause in xxiv. 5sq. and Rom. xvi. 27, 
cn which see ὃ 144, 7 p. 293 sq. | 

Acts xxvii. 10 θεωρῶ, ὅτι μετὰ ὕβρεως καὶ πολλῆς ζημίας... μέλλειν 
ἔσεσθαι τὸν πλοῦν. The sentence begins with ὅτι and passes over into 
the equivalent construction of the Acc. with the Infin. Something 
similar occurs often-enough in classic writers, see B. ὃ 139 τη. 61; and 
compare the twice used ὅτι in Eph. ii, 11 sq. (after several parenthetic 
clauses). 

1 Cor. xii. 2 according to the present reading: οἴδατε ὅτι ὅτε ἔθνη 
re πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ ἄφωνα ws ἂν ἤγεσθε ἀπαγόμενο. Here, after ex- 
punging the inconvenient ὅτε (as many mss. and editors do), we should 
encounter no further grammatical difficulty. But just this very 
circumstance confirms the clause ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε, and the sense is not 


10 


329 


884 ANACOLUTHON. [8 151 


opposed to it. The sentence begins with ὅτι and after the parenthetic 
clause ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε passes over into an indirect question, very much as 
we too might say Ye know that, when ye were heathen, how ye then 
were always led etc. Further, cf. on ἂν ἤγεσθε ὃ 139,13 p. 216. The 
combination ἤγεσθε ἀπαγόμενοι calls to mind the idiom in ὃ 144, 80 
Ρ. 818. For the other modes of explaining the passage see the Comm. 

Mark vi. 8 sq. according to the present reading: παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς 
ἵνα μηδὲν aipwow εἰς ὁδὸν εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον ..., ἀλλὰ ὑποδεδεμένους σανδάλια, 
καὶ μὴ ἐνδύσησθε δύο χιτῶνας. Here a threefold construction occurs : 
after παρήγγειλεν at first ἵνα follows (according to ὃ 139, 42 p. 237), 
then the Accus. of the Participle ὑποδεδεμένους as if the construction 
(equivalent to ἵνα) with the Infin. had preceded, and finally a transition 
to direct discourse (see 11 below, p. 385). The parallel passage 
(Luke ix. 3) might be explained similarly; yet it is more probable 
that Luke has so turned the common source whence both writers 
drew, that another mode of explanation may be admitted; see on this 
point § 140, 18 p. 271. 

Luke xi. 11 τίνα δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν τὸν πατέρα αἰτήσει ὃ vids ἄρτον, μὴ λίθον 
ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ; arose from the blending into one sentence of the two 
thoughts τίνα ἐξ ὑμῶν αἰτήσει ὃ vids dprov; and μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ 
ὃ πατήρ; Matthew (vii. 9) has united these two thoughts into one 
sentence differently, but likewise anacoluthically ; see on the passage 
§ 143, 6 Remark p. 284. 

Matt x. 25 ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὃ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὃ 
δοῦλος ὡς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ instead of καὶ τῷ δούλῳ ἀρκετὸν ἵνα γένηται ὡς etc. 

Rom. ii. 7 sq. ἀποδώσει τοῖς μὲν δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν ... " τοῖς δὲ ... ὀργὴ 
καὶ θυμός, where at the last words the apostle had in mind, instead of 
the Active predicate (ἀποδοῦναι) used in the first member (but some 
distance before), the Passive; hence the transition from the Accus. 
to the Nominative. Such blending of an Active and a Passive con- 
struction is not altogether uncommon; see e.g. Mark ix. 20 (in § 144, 
18, ὁ) p. 299), Acts v. 26 (in § 189, 48 p. 242), Rev. xi. 1 ἐδόθη μοι 
κάλαμος ὅμοιος ῥάβδῳ, λέγων equiv. to ἔδωκέν μοι κάλαμον, λέγων ; 
with this may be compared the frequent combination in the Sept. 
ἀνηγγέλη αὐτῷ, λέγοντες (Gen. xxii. 20; xxxviii. 24; 2 Sam. xv. 31; 
xix. 1, etc.). 

Rom. xi. 22 ἴδε οὖν χρηστότητα καὶ ἀποτομίαν θεοῦ - ἐπὶ μὲν τοὺς 
πεσόντας ἀποτομία etc., where the antecedent Accusatives, in continuing 
the discourse, are taken up again by the Nom. without the introduction 
of a new predicate. This is less an anacoluthon than an almost par- 
enthetic expansion (customary in Greek authors also) of the leading 
thought; see among other examples II. & 395; «. 487 ; Plat. Soph 
p- 266 d. (τίθημι δύο εἴδη etc.), p. 218 6. (τί δῆτα etc.) ; Bhdy. p. 68. 


§151.] ANACOLUTHON. 385 


In Gal. ii. 6 the clause ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι is left incomplete, 
but after the parenthesis (ὁποῖοί ποτε etc.) it is resumed in a changed 
construction by ἐμοὶ yap οἱ δοκοῦντες ete. 

Gal. ii. 4: here likewise the clause διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδα- 
δέλῴφους etc. is left unfinished, so that after the parenthesis we must 
either supply, from what precedes, the thought 7 did not have him 
circumcised, or we can avail ourselves of the Relative clause that 
follows (οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν etc.) in supplying the ellipsis, and arrange 
and complete the sentence grammatically thus: τοῖς δὲ παρεισάκτοις ... 
οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν. Cf. Acts xxiv. 18 above, p. 383. 

Rev. xxi. 8 rots δὲ δειλοῖς καὶ ἀπίστοις ... τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ 
etc., where the Dative at the beginning presupposes a verbal predicate 
(to fall to the lot of ), but in consequence of the substantive chosen 
(τὸ μέρος) is taken up again by the Gen. αὐτῶν. 

Other examples of the blending of two constructions have been 
treated of in ὃ 145, 9 p. 318; ὃ 129, 14 p. 183; § 139, 58 p. 251. 

d. A change of structure very current in Greek authors 
consists in the mingling of the direct and the indirect 
forms of statément. Of course the transition from the 
cumbrous and rather disliked indirect form of discourse, to 
the lively and popular direct form, is more frequent in Greek 
and N. T. authors, than the reverse. It is not to be overlooked, 
that Luke, beyond all other writers, has mastered most this 
genuine Greek mode of expression; whereas the examples 
from other N. T. authors result, perhaps, rather from inac- 
curacy or want of practice in composition. 

Transitions from indirect to direct discourse: Luke v. 14 παρήγγειλεν 
αὐτῷ μηδενὶ εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ δεῖξον ete., Acts i. 4 παρήγγειλεν περιμένειν 
τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν ἣν ἠκούσατε, xiv. 22; xvii. 3; xxiii. 22. On Mark 
vi. 8 see 10 above p. 384. Transitions from direct to indirect dis- 
course: the three parallel passages Matt. ix. 6; Mark ii. 20; Luke v. 
24 ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι..., εἶπεν τῷ παραλελυμένῳ, where after εἰδῆτε 
we expect ἃ λέγω or λέξω, but instead the historian straightway comes 
in (λέγει) ; Acts xxiii. 23 εἶπεν - ἑτοιωάσατε στρατιώτας ..., κτήνη TE 
παραστῆσαι, Mark xi. 82 where in the words of the historian ἐφοβοῦντο 
τὸν λαόν we have the conclusion to the scribes’ own -words ἀλλὰ 
εἴπωμεν " ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; On John x. 36 see ὃ 141, 1 p. 272, and on 
Luke ix. 3 no. 10 above, p. 384. 


1 When the indirect sentence is expressed by ὅτι with a finite verb instead of 
the Acc. with the Infin., the want of a prescribed sequence of words prevents us 
(as in 9 above in Relative clauses) from telling any longer with certainty whether 
following cla 1565 are to be regarded as still dependent on ὅτι, or stand indepen- 
dently again John vi. 22sq. may serve as an example. 


330 


886 ANACOLUTHON [$ 151. 


e. A considerable portion of the larger instances of anacolu- 
thon consist in this: that a given antecedent clause either 
wants altogether its proper consequent clause, or 
receives it only in substance, not in grammatical form, in one 
of the following clauses. Now in so far as the suppression of 
so essential a portion of the sentence takes place designedly 
and unmistakably for any ethical reason, it can be reckoned 
among the rhetorical figures; hence cases of the sort are wont 
to be treated of in grammar under the special designation of 


831 Aposiopesis (see 26 p. 896). But in so far as the con- 


13 


sequent clause fails to be given for formal reasons, to avoid 
some sort of repetition, the instance falls under the head of 
Ellipsis (see 23g) p. 893). 


Often, however, the reason for the suppression is an involuntary 
one, and the anacoluthon solely a result of negligent and loose 
connection, or called out by the troop of inrushing thoughts, by 
parentheses of various sorts, by the remote position of the antecedent 
clause, and other temporary causes. Instances of the sort are found 
with especial frequency in the writings of Paul, whose sentences, in 
consequence of his wealth of thought and fulness of heart, often ex- 
tended to entire pages, so that he not infrequently lost their gram- 
matical connection. For example, see Rom. v. 12sq.; ii. 17-21; xii. 
6-8, 15, 16; xvi. 25 sq.; Col.i; Eph. i. and ii.; Gal. iv. 19 sq.; 2 Thess. 
ii. 8, 4: 1“Tim. i. 3sq. In the Apocalypse such loose constructions 
are the order of the day, see e.g. i. 12-16; iii. 12,21; vii. 4,9; xi. 8; 
xiv. 12, and cf. § 123, 5 p. 78.1. Examples from other writers are 
Mark iii. 14 sqq.; Heb. iii. 15 sq.; 2 Pet. ii. 4-10. 

REMARK. Sometimes the apodosis or conclusion does not correspond 
to what precedes, because, instead of the consequent clause gram- 
matically required, words from the O. T. follow unaltered; as, Rom. 
xv. 3,21; 1 Cor. i. 31 (see on this las’ passage also ὃ 139, 37 p. 234); 
ef. also 1, ἃ) above, p. 377. 


1 The passage ii. 13 in the form given by the mss. and adopted by Lchm.[Treg.] 
does not offer a distant possibility of a grammatical construction, still less is any- 
thing analogous to it found elsewhere. In order, therefore, to restore the possibility 
of a meaning, we must either (with the more modern mss.) interpolate αἷς [&* ἐν 
αἷς] after ἡμέραις or read ἐν ats ἡμέραις instead of ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις. Perhaps the 
corruption arose from the circumstance that some copyist, instead of the original 
Genitive ᾿Αντίπα (see Tdf’s note in ed. 7), substituted, on account of the apposition 
following in the Nominative (§ 123, 5 p. 78), the Nominative form (’Avtiwas, which 
then entailed necessarily the further changes (αἷς, ἐν αἷς, etc.). [Tdf. now reads 
τὴν πίστιν μον ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ᾿Αντείπας ste. | 


§ 151.] INVERSION. 387 


Ill. Inversion (ΗὙΡΕΕΒΑΤΟΝῚ). 
B. p. 449 (526); H. § 885; C. 719; D. § 630; J. § 904; especially S. passim. 

Although the arrangement of words in the ancient languages, 
taken as a whole, is freer than in the modern, yet it is not so 
capricious, at least in prose, that words necessarily belonging 
together could be dissociated without any reason. On 
the contrary, even in this respect language is confined always 
within certain limits. The reasons for the separation, which 
it must be confessed might often be very recondite according 
to our judgment, are predominantly rhetorical in nature, 
and consist in the requirements of euphony, of emphasis, of 
the antithetic or corresponsive location of particular members : 
— or, to express it generally, in the desire, constantly operative 
both in speaking and writing, to direct the hearer’s or the 
reader’s attention, at one time sooner, at another 
later, to single parts of the sentence, according 
to the nature of the thought. Here, however, as in 
the case of anacoluthon, we will pass in review only such 
instances of hyperbaton as are often repeated or possess a 
certain resemblance. | 

a. The Genitive is separated from its governing substan- 
tive by other parts of the sentence, particularly by the predicate 
of the sentence. That perspicuity is not impaired, on the 
contrary often gains, by such an arrangement, appears from a 
nearer consideration of individual passages. 

Among others look at Mark ii. 28 κύριός ἐστιν ὃ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 
καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου, Rom. ix. 21 ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν 6 κεραμεὺς τοῦ 
πηλοῦ (cf. § 140, 8 Remark p. 260), Eph. ii. 3 ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς; 
1 Thess. ii. 13 παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, where θεοῦ 
depends on λόγον as is evident from what follows (deWette, das von 
uns verkiindigte Wort Gottes), 2 Cor. iii. 6 διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης, 
ov γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος etc., where the two Genitives γράμματος 
and πνεύματος depend according to vss. 7 and 8 on διακόνους. In both 
these last passages a different arrangement was hardly possible, owing 
to the double Genitives. 1 Pet. iii. 21 οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου, where 
emphasis occasioned the precedence of σαρκός. See also Acts iv. 33; 
xxii. 9; Gal. ii. 6; ii. 9; Jas. iii. 3; Heb. xii. 11 etc.; and on 2 Pet. 
iii. 2 see ὃ 182, 1b) p. 155. In Greek as in Latin there is a predi- 
lection for separating the Partitive Genitive in this way from 
its governing word, sometimes to such an extent that the two words 
belonging together occupy the first place in the clause and the last 


en 


32 


1 


15 


388 INVERSION. [8 151. 


(cf. Cic. de Or. 1,1, 8, and Kriiger, Lat. Gram. ὃ 684,[S. p. xxxiii sq.]), 
e.g. John iv. 39; xii. 11; 1 Cor. x. 27, etc.; and the Genitive of the 
Personal Pronouns also, in so far as it serves as a periphrasis for the 
Possessives, but (according to B. § 133 N. 10) in consequence of the 
stronger attractive power of the verb is placed nearer it, so that it 
then takes the place as it were of the Dative required by the verb. 
See (besides the example from John ix. 6 given § 133, 16 p. 180) 
John xiii. 6 σύ pov νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας ; 14 ὀφείλετε ἀλλήλων νίπτειν 
τοὺς πόδας. : 

b. A Participle in apposition to a substantive, and having 
an Infinitive clause also dependent upon it, stands by itself 
between the subst. and its article and allows the Infinitive 
adjunct to follow the substantive. 

1 Cor. xii. 22 τὰ δοκοῦντα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν 
instead of τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος τὰ δοκοῦντα ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν, Rom. 


599 viii. 18 τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, Gal. iii. 28. In a similar 


16 


i7 


manner Adverbial Adjuncts belonging immediately to a Par- 
ticiple having the article stand (not between the Art. and Part. but) 
outside, as 2 Pet. iii. 2 μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν 
προφητῶν ; (on this idiom, by no means rare in the classics, see B. 22d 
Germ. ed. § 151, iii, 7, [for examples cf. S. p. lxxx col. 2]). Hence 
grammatically it is quite admissible in 2 Thess. ii. 6 viv τὸ κατέχον 
(particularly on comparing other passages where νῦν precedes in a 
similar way, John iv. 18; Acts xv. 10; xxii. 16) to refer the viv to 
κατέχον ; yet see Meyer [i.e. Liinemann] in loc. On the other hand, 


in Rom. vii. 21 recent interpreters have with reason contested the 


opinion of those who draw τὸν νόμον into the Participial clause as 
object; cf. Winer p. 557 (518). 

c. Interrogative Clauses often take the subject of the 
clause or other words, on which in the course of the question 
the main emphasis falls, before the interrogative word. 

Thus often od τίς εἶ John i. 19; viii. 25; xxi. 12; Rom. ix. 20; 
xiv. 4; Jas. iv. 12, od τί λέγεις John ix. 17, ... κρίνεις Rom. xiv. 10. 
See besides Luke ix. 20; xvi. 11, 12 (in both instances the object, 
owing to antithesis), xxiii. 31; John xxi. 21; Acts xv.10; ν. 35 (see 
8 147, 24 p. 337, [S. p. xxiv]). 

d. In Relative Clauses this occurs less frequently, and 
probably only when they precede, owing to the external sim- 
ilarity they then bear to interrogative clauses, — (hence in 
Acts i. 2 the adjunct διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου is with reason not 
connected with the following Relative clause by the majority 
of recent expositors). 


§151.] INVERSION. 389 


John iv. 18 viv ὃν ἔχεις, 1 Cor. xv. 86 σὺ ὃ σπείρεις, and probably 
also John viii. 25 τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ, τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν see Liicke in loc., and 
x. 29 if, with Tdf. [Treg. cod. Sin.] and cod. Vat. first hand, we read 
ὃ πατὴρ ὃ δέδωκέν μοι, πάντων μεῖζόν ἐστι instead of 6 πατὴρ, ὃς 
δέδωκέν μοι, πάντων μείζων ἐστί. Cf. besides the paragraph on in- 
verted attraction with Relative clauses § 143, 13 p. 288, [S. p. xxix]. 

e. This transposition takes place, further, in clauses with 18 
subordinating conjunctions; so that, in consequence, the em- 
phasized word precedes the conjunction, —as is so often the 
case in Latin also. 

For example: before ἵνα, 2 Cor. ii. 4 τὴν ἀγάπην iva γνῶτε, ἣν ἔχω 
eis ὑμᾶς, Acts xix. 4; Col. iv. 16; Gal. ii. 10; Eph. iii. 18 Lchm. 
(see ὃ 144, 13, b) p. 299), 1 Cor. ix. 15 Tdf.; before ἐάν, 1 Cor. vi. 4. 


On 1 Cor. xi. 14 cf. 4 above, p. 380; before as, Rom. xii. 3; 1 Cor. 
iii. 5; vii. 17; before ἕως, 2 Thess. ii. 7. 


f. Smaller words, Particles, Negatives, because in 19 
their ordinary place they might easily remain unnoticed, stand 
not infrequently, in case of emphasis, in a position where, 
taken with rigorous logic, they do not belong; but this cer- 
tainly occurs also often without any other design than regard 
for euphony and rhythmical flow, —a consideration which in 
Greek writers (in the N. T. especially with Luke and the author 
of the Ep. to the Heb.) readily occasions the displacement of 
unemphatic words. 


Acts xxvi. 24 τὰ πολλά oe γράμματα εἰς μανίαν περιτρέπει, Heb. iv. 
11 ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδείγματι πέσῃ, Rom. v. 6 ἔτι γὰρ Χριστὸς 
ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν κατὰ καιρὸν... ἀπέθανεν, where the ἔτι is repeated 
again by several ancient mss. [cod. Sin. also] (and Lchm. [Treg. 
Tdf.]) in the place where it properly belongs (after ἀσθενῶν). On 334 
the trajection of ὅμως see § 144, 23 p. 308. Negatives trans- 
posed: Acts vii. 48 ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐν χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ. In 
Rom. iii. 9 τί οὖν ; προεχόμεθα ; οὐ πάντως, several interpreters have 
taken οὐ πάντως as an inversion for πάντως οὐ (1 Cor. xvi. 12). It 
is evident, however, that nothing but deference to our usage (because 
we invert in translation our corresponding words altogether not, ganz 
und gar nicht) produced the assumption. »oth adverbial expres- 
sions πάντως οὐ and ov πάντως correspond precisely to the N. Τὶ. peri- 
phrases for the negative adjectives by means of πᾶς od and οὐ πᾶς 
(see ὃ 127, 82 p. 121); and as in that case both combinations are 
rendered by no one, so here the two adverbial expressions may in a 
similar manner be reproduced by in no wise (i.e. not at all). The 


390 ELLIPSIS. [§ 151 


separation of the two words (as in the case of the adjective) was 
impossible in the passage before us, owing to the ellipsis; but there 
is nothing to prevent our filling out the expression (in accordance 
with p. 122) thus: οὐ προεχόμεθα πάντως. On the other hand, in 
1 Cor. v. 10 ἔγραψα ὑμῖν μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις, οὐ πάντως τοῖς 
πόρνοις etc. the first (dependent) negative, precisely according to the 
rule in ὃ 148, 8 p. 852, is not continued in the following clause (in 
this case μὴ πάντως would have been absolutely required) but revoked, 
or rather in a certain sense restricted, by the second (direct) negative: 
I wrote to you to hold no intercourse with fornicators ; (by that J mean) 
not completely, not altogether etc., for otherwise (ἐπεὶ ὠφείλετε, see 
§ 149, 5 p. 859) ye must ete. Mark iv. 16 καὶ οὗτοί εἰσιν ὁμοίως οἱ ἐπὶ 
τὰ πετρώδη σπειρόμενοι ot for καὶ ὁμοίως of ἐπὶ τὰ π. σπειρόμενοι οὗτοί 
εἰσιν οἵ etc. In 2 Tim. ii. 6 the assumption of an hyperbaton (πρῶτον 
belonging to κοπιῶντα) has been discarded by recent expositors, and 
in Acts i. 21 ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς belongs to the entire predicate εἰσῆλθεν καὶ 
ἐξῆλθεν taken as one idea: to go out and in. 

ἢ g. Lastly, entire clauses also are sometimes moved 
forward, sometimes displaced. This occurs, however, more or 
less in all languages, and the reason for the change of location 
is, as a rule, plainly to be perceived. 

Somewhat abnormal and unusual, according to N. T. usage, is the 
placing of the final clause first in John xix. 28 pera τοῦτο εἰδὼς ... 
iva τελειωθῇ 7 γραφὴ, λέγει" διψῶ (see Liicke), xix. 31; Rom. ix. 11 
(see Fritzsche, Com. II. p. 297); also the arrangement in John xi. 15 
χαίρω δι᾽ ὑμᾶς, ἵνα πιστεύσητε, ὅτι etc. where ὅτι depends on χαίρω; and 
further, the position of the Relative clause in John x. 806 (see on this 
§ 141, 1 p. 272), and of the indirect interrogative clause in 1 Cor. xy. 2 
δ οὗ καὶ σώζεσθε, τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε. 

Remark. On the phrases πρὸ ἐξ ἡμερῶν τοῦ πάσχα, ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων 
etc. see ὃ 131, 11 p. 153; and on ἐπὶ σταδίους δώδεκα χιλιάδων (Rev. 
xxi. 16) see ὃ 182, 11 Rem. p. 163. 


IV. Exuipsis (BracHYLOGY, PreGNnant ConsTRUCTION). 
B. § 151, 1saq.; H. §§ 880sq.; C. cf. Index s.v.; Ὁ, §§ 627, 628; J. §§ 891 sq. 

9 <A large part of those instances to which with more or less 
reason the grammatical notion of Ellipsis, or the omission of a 
495 part of a sentence, can be applied, have already been assigned 
to other places in this Grammar. We will give as complete a 
reference to them as possible, before we proceed to treat of 
those cases of ellipsis which ought to be grouped together here. 

On the ellipsis of the subject, in so far as it is to he supplied 


§ 151.] ELLIPSIS. 391 


from the context or some other source, see ὃ 129, 14sqq. p. 182 sqq.; 
of the substantive with an adjective § 123, 8 p. 81; § 134, 6 
p- 189; of a substantive with the article followed by a Genitive or 
some sort of an adverbial adjunct (ὃ rod, of περὶ, ἣ σήμερον, etc.) ὃ 125, 
7-10 pp. 94sq.; ofthe object or of ἑαυτόν ὃ 130, 4 p. 144; of the 
Genitive κυρίου with ὄνομα and of τῆς ὁδοῦ see p. 163; of the pro- 
nominal words in two connected clauses § 130, 2 p. 142; of an 
indefinite pronominal term (τινές) with a partitive Gen., or its 
periphrasis by means of ἐκ, ὃ 182, 6 p. 158; of the copula ὃ 129, 
20 sq. pp. 186sq.; of other general verbal notions akin to the 
copula (as παρεῖναι, γίνεσθαι, ἐλθεῖν, our as respects, concerns, etc.) in 
such sentences as τί ἐμοὶ καὶ cot etc. ὃ 129, 23 p. 137; of 7 after 
πλεῖον etc. ὃ 132, 21 p. 168; of av with ἔδει, ἀνῆκεν, etc., ὃ 139, 15 
p. 216 sq.; of ἄν with conditional sentences of the fourth kind ὃ 139, 
27 p. 225; of a Passive idea in the participle with the Dative 
(consilii) ὃ 133, 24 p. 185; of a finite verb with the participle 
§ 144, 6 and 7 pp. 292sq.; of a verb or term of fearing, anxiety, 
before μή, μήποτε, etc. ὃ 148, 10 p. 353; of λέγω (in explanation) 
with the Infin. absol. § 140, 18 p. 271, and with the negative od ὃ 148 
8 p. 352; on the elliptical mode of expression in proverbs and 
proverbial phrases ὃ 144, 5 p. 291sq., cf. below no. 24, a) p. 394; 
on the elliptical use of εἰ μή ὃ 149, 4 p.359; of κἄν ibid. 6 p. 360; 
ou the ellipsis of an entire clause or thought before ὅτι § 149, 
3 p. 358; before γάρ ibid. 15 p. 370; before ἵνα, and on the 
elliptical ἵνα (ἀλλ᾽ iva) in general, ὃ 139, 47 p. 241; on the ellipsis 
of the consequent clause in so far as the sentence becomes in 
‘his way anacoluthic, see the chapters on Anacoluthon and Aposiopesis. 

Under the head of ellipsis in the broader (improper) sense 
belong all those cases where certain parts of the sentence are 
simply not repeated, because they are already contained in 
what precedes. Since this occurs in all languages, in the 
following exposition (for simplicity’s sake and in order not to 
heap up a mass of perfectly plain and intelligible examples) 
regard will be paid to those instances only in which an actual 
deviation from our usage occurs. 

a) The member dropped is of such a nature that, were the 
sentence complete, it would have been repeated without 
further change of form. 

Passing over such passages as Luke xx. 24; Rom. iii. 27; viii. 4; 
1 Cor. vii. 3; John iv. 26; Rom. xiii. 1, etc., where our language is 
wont for the most part to express itself in the same way, we encounter 
the greatest peculiarity in the following passages: 2 Cor. i. 6; v. 13; 


399 ELLIPSIS. 25 [§ 151. 


vii. 12, in which passages the predicate, or its equivalent, must be re- 

836 peated in the consequent clause from the antecedent clause; Rom. 
xi. 6 where in the antecedent clause as well as in the consequent the 
predicate must be supplied from what precedes; John iv. 53; Acts 
xxiii. 34; 1 Cor. xv. 27 where in the clauses beginning with ὅτε the 
predicate is wanting; Rom. ii. 28 where the words Ἰουδαῖος and 
περιτομή strictly ought to have been expressed twice; Rom. iv. 16 διὰ 
τοῦτο ἐκ πίστεως, iva κατὰ χάριν (to be completed from vss. 13 and 14), 
etc. The article is used alone with the omission of a participle 
(contained in what precedes) in Matt. xxv. 17, 22 ὁ τὰ δύο se. λαβών, 
cf. Gal. iv. 29 and 24 b) below, p. 394. 

b) A portion of the sentence must be repeated from the 
preceding context, but with a change of form. Here, too, 
it is superfluous to adduce all the examples, since we often 
express ourselves in quite the same way. 


For example: Mark xiv. 29 εἰ πάντες σκανδαλισθήσονται, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ 
ἐγώ sc. σκανδαλισθήσομαι (as Matt. actually has it), xv. 8 ἤρξατο aire’ 
σθαι, καθὼς ἀεὶ ἐποίει αὐτοῖς sc. ποιεῖν or iva ποιήσῃ, 1 Cor. ix. 25 (se 
iva λάβωσιν), Heb. v. 5 (sce. ἐδόξασεν αὐτὸν γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα), Gal. 
iii. 5 where also, according to 24 b) p. 894, a simple τοῦτο ποιεῖ may 
be supplied. Further, see Matt. xxvi. 5; Luke xxiii. 41; John xiii. 
9; xviii. 40; Rom. xi. 16; xii. 6sqq., 1 Cor. xi. 1; xiv. 27; vii. 21; 
ix. 12; Gal. ii. 16; Phil. iii.4; Eph. v.24; 2 Tim.i.5; Heb. xii. 25. 
Of course ellipses of this sort, especially the more surprising, were 
apt to be filled out by the copyists, and hence many other passages 
where the ellipsis is found in the minority of mss. may originally have 
belonged under this head; as Eph. v. 22 Tdf. Respecting the 
instances where the subject is supplied in this way from the context, 
see ὃ 129, 14, 15 pp. 132 sq. 


9) When in a following clause, instead of the negatived 
member that precedes, the affirmative is to be supplied, 
an intimation of this is given by the conjunction ἀλλά (as in 
the opposite case by ἀλλ᾽ od Mark xiy. 29 etc.). (Cf. the 
elliptical wohl aber in Germ.) 


For example: 1 Cor. vii. 19; iii. 1,7; x. 24 μηδεὶς τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ζητείτω, 
ἀλλὰ (but every man) τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου, Gal. vi. 15; Eph. iv. 29. In 
2 Cor. viii. 5 καὶ οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσαμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν etc. the pred- 
icate is expressed, indeed, in the clause that follows, but instead not 


in the preceding clause: and (they gave) not barely as we hoped, but 
even themselves did they give ete. 


d) From a preceding specific .*rm a more general one, 


8151. ELLIPSIS. BOB 


or at least a kindr2d idea merely, is to be educed for what 
follows. 


Rom. xiv. 21 καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον μηδὲ ἐν ᾧ ... 
προσκόπτει nor in general to do anything etc., 23; Heb. x. 6, 8 
᾿δλοκαυτώματα Kal περὶ ἁμαρτίας sc. προσφοράν, 38 (on which see ὃ 129, 
15 p. 133), John xii. 5 where, strictly speaking, we must supply with 
ἐδόθη the proceeds gained from the sale of the ointment, 2 Cor. v. 12 
where from συνιστάνομεν a γράφομεν or λέγομεν τοῦτο is to be derived. 
On Rey. xii. 12 Lchm. ['Treg.] see ὃ 131, 14 p. 154. 


6) After εἰ δὲ μή or εἰ δὲ μή γε (see B. lc. 7) the 
ellipsis became, as is well known, so general, that this formula 
acquired almost the force of an unchangeable particle, serving 337 
to negative the preceding clause regardless of its form and 
to introduce what follows; much as we use the word other- 
wise. 

Hence it stands not only (as in Greek authors) after antecedent 
negations, Luke v. 36 sq. and its parallels, 2 Cor. xi. 16, but also as a 
continuation of a condition expressed by ἐάν, Luke x. 6; xiii. 9, indeed 
is even so used that a second clause with ἐάν, taking up as it were in 
what follows the εἰ δὲ μή and paraphrasing it, is added, Rev. ii. 5 
(cf. Clement’s 2d Ep. ad Cor. c. 6). In general it stands readily 
after Imperatives, so that the predicate in an altered form strictly 
ought to be repeated according to Ὁ) above; as, Matt. vi. 1; John 
xiv. 11; 2 Cor. xi. 16; Rev. ii. 5, 16. 


-f) Particularly characteristic of Paul is the elliptical con 
struction after the formula od μόνον 5é... followed by ἀλλὰ 
kai; what is omitted may in every instance easily be supplied 
from the context. 


For example: Rom. v. 8, 11; viii. 23; ix. 10 (where the second 
clause also is elliptical, or rather anacoluthic, the antecedent Nom. 
Ῥεβέκκα being taken up again, according to 4 above, p. 380, by the 
Dative αὐτῇ in vs. 12), 2 Cor. viii. 19; On the other hand, more 
complete is 1 Tim. v. 13 (2 Tim. iv. 8 ete.). In Greek authors also, 
particularly the later (Diog. Laert., Lucian), a similar usage is found. 


g) Lastly, to avoid repetitions sometimes the entire 
consequent clause is omitted, or is wrought immediately 
into the antecedent clause. | 


So particularily in comparative sentences (as the same thing 
often occurs in Latin authors also, e.g. Cic. sen. 2. 5; 11. 86); as, 


2 Cor. iii. 13 καὶ od καθάπερ Μωυσῆς ἐτίθει κάλυμμα etc., Matt. xxv. 
50 


394 ELLIPSIS. [§ 151. 


14sq.; 1 John iii. 12. On this cf. besides 12 above, p. 386, and 
especially 26 below (Aposiopesis) p. 396. 


% The actual ellipses, i.e. those which are not resorted to 
in order to avoid a repetition, but where the missing member 
is to be supplied from the words immediately given, are for 
the most part contained in the list given above (22 p. 390 sq.). 
Here are still to be mentioned 

a) The omission of the predicate in standing formulas 
and proverbial phrases, such as are found in all 
languages (cf. § 144, 5 p. 291). 


For example: ri ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί (Matt. viii. 29; Mark i. 24; Luke 
viii. 28; John ii. 4), τὸ αἷμα ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς (Matt. xxvii. 25), ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ 
ὀφθαλμοῦ (Matt. v. 38), etc., see the remaining examples in ὃ 129, 23 
Ρ. 138; further, the familiar epistolary salutation yaiépevv, in which 
the accompanying Dative easily suggests the missing term λέγω 
(2 John 10, 11) ; as, Acts xv. 23; xxiii. 26; Jas. i. 1. 


b) And in other sentences also, when the words actually 
expressed are sufficiently definite to cause the missing 
838 predicate to suggest itself. 


Thus the term εἶπεν is omitted when the direct discourse itself 
immediately follows (as in Lat.), eg. Acts ii. 38 Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς - 
μετανοήσατε etc., xxv. 22, probably also 2 Cor. ix. 6 τοῦτο δὲ (se. λέγω 
[ Eng. but this I say]; deWette, wisset). On this cf. § 140, 18 p. 271. 
Further, other general terms are omitted whose more precise 
nature is indicated by a case or an adverb or a preposition (especially 
ἐκ and εἰς), as Luke xxii. 26 ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως (sc. ποιήσετε), Phil. iii. 
14 ἕν δὲ (se. ποιῶ) cf. Gal. iii. 5, etc.; John xxi. 21 οὗτος δὲ τί; (say 
γίνεται), Rom. iv. 9 ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ete. (86. γίνεται 
or λέγεταιν)',, ν. 18 εἰς πᾶντας ἀνθρώπους (sc. ἀπέβη, ἐγένετο), Gal. ii. 9 
ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς etc. (sc. ἐρχώμεθαλ), iii. 18 εἰ γὰρ ἐκ 
νόμων ἡ κληρονομία, ν. 8 ἣ πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ἡμᾶς, 18 μόνον 
μὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί (where the idea omitted is 
something like possess, make use of, and is intimated by the μή of the 
Imperative). The more specific predicates, if they have not 
already been expressly mentioned in the preceding context, are less 
frequently omitted, because their omission easily causes obscurity. 
Yet we easily supply in Gal. i. 20 (ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι) the idea 
I swear, in Rev. vi. 6 (τρεῖς χοίνικες Syvapiov) from the accompanying 
Gen. of price the notion of a verb of buying or appraising, in 2 Cor. ix. 
7 the term δότω from the drift of the entire section (chaps. viii. and ix.). 
1 Cor. iv. 6 is more difficult ; here we must supply with ἵνα μάθητε τὸ 

[tef. p. 138.] 


§ 151.] ELLIPSIS. 395 


μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται an Infin., say φρονεῖν (which as an explanatory 
addition is found even in the mss.). In some passages the ellip- 
tically used article necessarily points to a Participle (cf. 23, a) 
p- 392): Acts xiii. 9 Σαῦλος, ὁ καὶ Παῦλος sc. καλούμενος, Rom. xiil. 7 
ἀπόδοτε... τῷ Tov φόρον (sc. αἰτοῦντι) τὸν φόρον, τῷ τὸ τέλος ete. 
2 Cor. viii. 15 (quotn.) 6 τὸ πολὺ (se. συλλέγων) οὐκ ἐπλεόνασεν, καὶ ὃ 
τὸ ὀλίγον etc. Several examples quite similar are adduced from 
Lucian by Du Mesnil, Stolper Progr. ( 1867) Ρ. 9. 

Remark. Here belongs also the phrase ὅρα μή, uttered after the ᾿ 
manner of an aposiopesis (no. 26 p. 396) and left incomplete: Rev 
xix. 10; xxii. 9. 

c) To the instances where an entire thought or a 
complete clause must be supplied (see 22 p. 890) belongs 
the construction, when, between premise and conclusion, the 
middle member or logical link is wanting, — the writer in his 
haste to reach the main thought giving it at once in the form 
of the conclusion. 

Rom. xi. 18 μὴ κατακαυχῶ τῶν κλάδων " εἰ δὲ κατακαυχᾶσαι, od σὺ τὴν 
ῥίζαν βαστάζεις ete. supply, remember that etc. Likewise, 1 Cor. xi. 16; 
John ix. 36 tis ἐστιν, κύριε, ἵνα πιστεύσω εἰς αὐτόν, 1 John v. 9. Also 
in 1 Cor. xv. 82 εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ 
ἀποθνήσκομεν, strictly taken, such a middle member is omitted, and yet 
the conclusion (φάγ. καὶ πίω.) in the spirited style connects finely 
with the premise. ΤῸ the same desire to omit superfluous and unes- 
sential words and give the main thought itself as soon as possible, is 
to be traced the omission before a Relative clause of the 
Demonstrative, grammatically required, together with the copula 
belonging to it; as, 2 Cor. iv. 6 6 θεὸς ὁ εἰπὼν ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψαι, 
ὃς ἔλαμψεν i.e. he it is who ete. (cf. v. 5); Luke viii. 13 of δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς 339 
πέτρας (sc. οὗτοί εἰσιν) ot, ὅταν ἀκούσωσιν etc. 

It is obvious that the majority of ellipses have arisen from % 
an endeavor after brevity of expression; hence many 
of them have been treated by grammarians and interpreters 
under the designation of Brachylogy (Breviloquence) or Preg- 
nant Construction. Since, however, it is difficult —so elastic 
is the idea of Brachylogy—to draw a boundary even ap- 
proximately precise between it and Ellipsis, it seemed to be 
more convenient and more promotive of perspicuity to unite 
all the instances of the sort under the one general head of 
Ellipsis. 

It may be particularly mentioned here, also, that many of the 


896 APOSIOPESIS. [8 151. 


syntactic combinations already treated of in other parts of this Gram- 
mar may be viewed as brachylogic, inasmuch as the term or membet 
omitted, or rather not specially expressed, does not admit of being 
represented so definitely as in the foregoing paragraphs by one or 
more words fitting into the context. Thus the usage is decidedly 
brachylogical, of substituting in comparisons at once the whole 
instead of the part to which, strictly speaking, the comparison 
extends; on this see ὃ 182, 20 p. 167 in connection with ὃ 133, 10 
p- 177. 

Brachylogic, further, are many of the adjuncts in the Ace. 
with Passive and Middle notions (see among other examples 2 Cor. 
vi. 13 and iii. 18 in ὃ 134, 7 p. 190) ; the omission of a verbum dicendt, 
sentiendi, querendi before a direct discourse, sentences with ὅτι, 
qvestions etc., see ὃ 139, 57,58 pp. 250 sq., ὃ 141, 1 and Note p. 272 sq. ; 
clauses with ἐπεί and ἀλλά in the pregnant signification since then, 
since otherwise, otherwise however, see ὃ 149, 5 p. 359 and 14 p. 869; 
the adverbial specifications of the departure and the goal at the same 
time with ἄρχεσθαι, see ὃ 150, 7 p. 874; as well as all the numerous 
instances of the so-called pregnant construction with prep- 
ositions, see § 147 under the several prepositions, especially under 
ἀπό p. 322 8q., ἐκ p. 327, εἰς p. 332 sq. 


V. APOSIOPESIS. 
B, p. 452 (629); H. § 883; D. § 627; J. § 860, 8; 897. 

% In perfect agreement with the classic examples of Aposiopesis 
after an antecedent conditional clause is Luke xiii. 9 κἂν μὲν 
ποιήσῃ καρπόν " εἰ δὲ μή γε, εἰς TO μέλλον ἐκκόψεις αὐτήν. 

Analogous in form to this are the following: Luke xix. 42 εἰ ἔγνως 
καὶ σὺ καί ye ἐν TH ἡμέρᾳ σου ταύτῃ τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην σου" νῦν δὲ etc. 
where the form of the suppressed apodosis is sufficiently indicated by 
the formula viv δέ, which is so often introduced after conditional 
sentences of the fourth kind (John viii. 40; ix. 41; xv. 22, 24 ete.; 
1 Cor. xii. 20; Heb. ix. 26; xi. 16), Luke xxii. 42 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7; 
ed. 8 παρενέγκαι, so cod. Sin.] (where the reading παρένεγκε [ Lchm. 
Treg.] probably came from the copyists, who either were not ac- 
quainted with the idiom or wanted to make the words conform to 
those in the parallel passages). Similar also are John vi. 62; Acts 

840 xxiii. 9; Rom. ix. 22; in these passages the editors indicate the 
presence of this kind of ellipsis by an interrogation mark (as denoting 
a thought remaining as it were without answer, or the answer to 
which is left to the hearer). 

On the origin of the formula of swearing with εἰ without an 
apodosis following, see § 149, 4 p. 358. 


§151.] PLEONASM. 397 


VI. Przonasm. 
B. p. 452 (580); H. § 884; C. οὗ Index; Ὁ. § 629; J. § 899. 

The majority of pleonastic modes of expression, like the 
elliptical, so far forth as they are ofa grammatical nature 
have been considered and discussed at other points in this 
Grammar, to which the following summary reference may be 
of service: 


On the superfluous use of Pronouns, particularly of the Pron. 
αὐτός, the Possessives, and their periphrases by means of the Personals, 
see ὃ 127, 9 5α. p. 107 sq., 26 p. 118; § 180,2 p.142; of the oblique 
cases of αὐτός in Hebrew fashion in Relative sentences, ὃ 143, 1 p. 280; 
on οὗτος and οὕτως after Participles (and substantives) with and 
without the article, § 144, 21 p. 306; on otros before clauses with ὅτι 
and iva, ὃ 127,6p.105; on οὕτως at the beginning of the con- 
clusion, ὃ 149,1p.357; on τις in the combination εἷς τις, ὃ 124, 1 
p- 85; on μᾶλλον with the Comparative, ὃ 123,11 p.83; on kai 
after ὡς, ὡσαύτως, at the beginning of the conclusion, etc., § 149, 8 c) 
and f) p. 862sq.; on ὅτε before the Infin., and before other de- 
clarative clauses (ὅτι, ὡς), see 10 above, p. 383; on the Negatives 
ov and μή after predicates in which a negative idea is contained, as 
well as μή in the formula ἐκτὸς εἰ μή, ὃ 148, 13 p. 855; on οὐ in ἢ 
ov see § 149,7 p. 360; on the Hebraistic circumlocution for preposi- 
tions by means of the phrases διὰ χειρός, διὰ στόματος, πρὸ προσώπου, 
and the like, § 133, 20 p. 182; § 146, 1 p. 319, and § 147 under the 
several Prep.; on Participles in such combinations as εἶπεν, 
ἐλάλησεν λέγων, the Hebraistic combinations ἰδὼν εἶδον etc., ὃ 144, 80 
p-313; on the Dative in similar combinations, ὃ 133, 22 p. 183 sq. ; 
on the Imperatives ὅρα, βλέπετε before other Imperatives, ὃ 139, 
49 p. 242 sq. 

The pleonastic fashion of subjoining to local adverbs answering 
to the question whence the Prep. ἀπό, ἐκ, has been already mentioned 
on p. 70. A similar redundance (of which numerous examples can 
be adduced from Greek authors also, see the grammars) occurs, too, 
with other adverbial expressions, e.g. John xi. 7 ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο, Xiii. 
27 μετὰ τὸ ψωμίον τότε (see ὃ 147, 26 p. 339), particularly in the 
repetition in an adverbial form of the idea of the Prep. with which 
the verb is compounded, as ἐκβάλλειν and ἐξάγειν ἔξω (Luke iv. 29; 
xxiv. 50, etc.), προδραμὼν ἔμπροσθεν (xix. 4), πάλιν ἀνακάμπτειν (Acts 
xviii. 21), with which agree the pleonasms with substantives, 6 
οἰκοδεσπότης τῆς οἰκίας Luke xxii. 11, τὰ Baia τῶν φοινίκων John xii. 18. 


A great portion of the pleonasms of the N. T. are of a 
rhetorical nature or belong to the peculiar style of the several 


28 


398 PLEONASM. [§ 151. 


writers, who vary in their fondness for expressing themselves 
in the verbose Oriental fashion. To these Oriental pleonasms 
841 belong such phrases as ὁρᾷν ὀφθαλμοῖς (1 Johni.1); μέλλουσιν 
ἔρχεσθαι καὶ ἁρπάζειν αὐτόν (John vi. 15) ; ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα 
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ταύτης εὐηγγελίσατο etc. 
(Acts viii. 85, ef. x. 84; Matt. v. 2); ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς 
καὶ θεασάμενος (John vi. 5); the frequently repeated ἐδού 
(often twice and more in the same sentence), perticularly in 
the historic style; the periphrastic way of expressing a simple 
event by means of ἐγένετο δὲ, or καὶ ἐγένετο, with a finite verb 
following, or an Infinitive (§ 141, 6 p. 276); the tropes yelp 
κυρίου, οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ κυρίου ; the many phrases and periphrases 
formed with the word ὄνομα ; and many others. The subject, 
consequently, is less of a grammatical nature, than of a stylistic 
nature in the main. Of the copious details, those which admit 
of being brought under somewhat definite linguistic heads are 
the following : 
a) The (frequent) literal and commonly asyndetic 
repetition of a member of a sentence, particularly in successive 
parallel sentences, is designed for oratorical effect. 


Thus the forceful threefold ἐβλήθη in Rev. xii. 9, the double ἰδοὺ 
νῦν in 2 Cor. vi. 2, the thrice used πάντα ἄνθρωπον in Col. i. 28, the 
threefold ἀλλά in 1 Cor. vi. 11, the fivefold πάντες (connected by καὶ) 
in x. 1sq. Further, see Rom. viii. 15 (πνεῦμα twice), John i. 10 (καὶ 
ὃ κόσμος twice), xiv. 27 (εἰρήνην twice, asyndetically), xix. 10 (ἐξουσίαν 
ἔχω twice), Matt. xii. 87 (ἐκ τῶν λόγων cov twice), 1 Cor. xiii. 11 (as 
νήπιος thrice, asyndetically), xiv. 24 (ὑπὸ πάντων twice, asyndetically), 
i. 20 (ποῦ three times, asyndetically), iv. 8 (ἤδη twice), 2 Cor. xi. 26 
(κινδύνοις eight times, asyndetically), vii. 2 (οὐδένα three times, asyn- 
detically), xi. 20 (εἴ τις five times, asyndetically), Phil. iii. 2 (βλέπετε 
three times, asyndetically), iv. 8 (ὅσα six times, asyndetically), Eph. 
vi. 12 (πρός four times, asyndetically), 1 Tim. v. 10 (εἰ five times, 
asyndetically), 1 John i. 1 sq. (6 four times, asyndetically), an entire 
telic clause twice in 2 Cor. xii. 7. The repetition of the same word 
in immediate succession in ἔπεσεν, ἔτεσεν Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη, Rev. 
xiv. 8; xviii. 2, is emphatic; the doubling of the Imperative attests 
the clamorousness of the demand, as in oravpwoov, σταύρωσον John 
xix. 6; the repetition of the person addressed, anxious solicitude of 
the speaker in respect to himself,— as Matt. xxv. 11 κύριε, κύριε, ἄνοιξον 
ἡμῖν, Luke viii. 24 ἐπιστάτα, ἐπιστάτα, ἀπολλύμεθα, ---- ΟΥ earnest and 
reproachful admon‘tion in respect to the person addressed, as Luke x. 


§ 151.] EPEXEGESIS. 899 


41 Μάρθα, Μάρθα, μεριμνᾷς etc., xxii. 31 Σίμων, Σίμων, ἰδοὺ ὃ σατανᾶς 
etc., Acts ix. 4 etc. Σαούλ, Σαούλ, τί με διώκεις ; 

b) The altered repetition of a particular member 
aims to give it prominence in order to turn attention to it, 
sometimes also merely to take it up again in a more suitable 
position. 

This repetition occurs most commonly by means of the Demonstra- 
tive οὗτος and adverb οὕτως, sometimes in the following clause (see 
the examples in ὃ 144, 21 p. 306), sometimes in the very same clause, 
as John iv. 6 Ἰησοῦς κεκοπιακὼς ... ἐκαθέζετο οὕτως, Matt. xiii. 20 sqq. 842 
ὃ δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη σπαρεὶς οὗτός ἐστιν etc., Acts ii. 23 Ἰησοῦν τὸν 
Ναζωραῖον ... τοῦτον ἀνείλατε, xv. 38; Rom. vii. 10 εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ 
ἡ εἰς ζωὴν, αὕτη εἰς θάνατον, ix. 6,etc. The periphrastic repetition 
aims at perspicuity, see the following section. 

c) A peculiar kind of altered repetition, which in the N. T. 
is especially characteristic of John, but is often found also in 
all Greek literature from Homer on (see the examples in B. 
VI.2; J.§ 899, 6), consists in the repetition of the negatived 
contrary, and that too always immediately afterwards and 
connected by καί. 

John i. 20 ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, 1 John i. 6 ψευδόμεθα καὶ 
ov ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (yet here with a certain difference), ii. 4, 27 
ἀληθές ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ψεῦδος, Luke i. 20 σιωπῶν καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος 
λαλῆσαι, Acts xviii. 9 λάλει καὶ μὴ σιωπήσῃς, Heb. xii. 8 νόθοι ἐστὲ καὶ 
οὐχ υἱοί; cf. John i. 3, etc. Both emphasis and perspicuity are the 
aim of this mode of expression. 


d) Those instances in which an entire clause (antecedent 
or parenthetic) is repeated for the sake of perspicuity belong 
rather to Exegesis or Stylistics. See e.g. Rom. vi. 16 6 
παριστάνετε ἑαυτούς ... ᾧ ὑπακούετε, ---- αὖ which Lchm. (II. 
praef. x) takes offence without reason ; see Meyer in loc. 


VII. Eprxecssis. 
B. p. 458 (580); C. § 668; J. § 667; 886, 2. 

Epexegetical additions in the books of the N. T., especially 39 
in the Mss., are innumerable. Many of these, however, long 
ago came int) suspicion with N. T. critics as probably being 
glosses and interpretations added by some later hand, admitted 
into the text of the mss. by the carelessness of the copyists, 
and thence into the printed editions; and they have now, 


400 ZEUGMA. [§ 151. 


through the laborious, acute and comparative criticism of 
recent editors, been removed from the text. 


A large part of the genuine epexegetical additions are announced 
by the adverbial τουτέστιν (see p. 11), particularly in the Epp. to the 
Rom. and the Heb.; see the lexicons. But there are many also 
without that adjunct: thus the Infinitive, with and without τοῦ, 
after abstracts, in explanation or extension of their meaning, as Rev. 
xiii. 6 βλασφημίας πρὸς τὸν θεόν, βλασφημῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν 
σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ σκηνοῦντας ; see the exx. with τοῦ 
in 8 140, 14 p. 268; after Pronouns and Adverbs to designate 
them more closely, as 1 Cor. xvi. 21 τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου, John ix. 13 
ἄγουσιν αὐτὸν πρὸς τοὺς Φαρισαίους, τόν ποτε τυφλόν, Acts vill. 38; 
1 Thess. iv. 3 τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν, Jas. iv. 1 
οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν, ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν ; (cf. with this the preparatory 
οὗτος, etc., § 127, 6 p. 105), Mark ii. 20; Luke v. 35 τότε... ἐν ἐκείνῃ 
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ or ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις (cf. the opposite case John xiii. 27) ;* 
and also after words of other kinds that need explanation, e.g. John 


848 vi. 1 πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Γαλιλαίας, τῆς Τιβεριάδος, Eph. i. 7 ἐν ᾧ 


30 


ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων, 13 ὁ λόγος τῆς 
ἀληθείας, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν, Rom. viii. 28 υἱοθεσίαν 
ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν, Phil. iv. 18; Eph. 
ii. 15, etc. To determine how far additions connected by καί also 
are of an epexegetical nature as respects sense, is a matter for 
the interpreter; as respects grammatical form, they cannot be 
denominated epexegetical, owing to the connection by καΐ; see ὃ 149, 
8 h) p. 363. 

Remark. On Rev. ii. 5 (εἰ δὲ uy... ἐὰν μὴ peravonoys) see 23, 6) 
Ρ. 893. 


VIII. Zzevema. 
B. p. 458 (580 sq.); H. § 882; C. $497; D. § 628; J. δ 896, 5. 
That in the N. T. there are indubitable instances of this 
grammatical figure of speech may be seen from the fol- 
lowing examples: 


1 Cor. xiv. 34 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] οὐ yap ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ 
ὑποτάσσεσθαι etc., where émirp. strictly suits λαλεῖν only, and from it is 
to be derived the requisite notion of necessity for ὑποτάσσεσθαι (hence 
the early alteration into the Imperative: ὑποτασσέσθωσαν Lehm. 
(Treg. Tdf. cod. Sin.]), Luke i. 64 ἀνεῴχθη τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ παραχρῆμα 


1 Here belongs also Acts xix. 40 μηδενὸς αἰτίου ὑπάρχοντος, περὶ οὗ δυνησόμεθα 
δοῦναι λόγον τῆς συστροφῆς ταύτης, which arose from μηδ. air. ὑπάρχ., ὅτι or va 
περὶ τούτου (sc. περὶ τῆς συστροφῆς ταὐτηΞ5) δυνησόμεθα etc. On this cf. ὁ 139, 82 
Ὁ. 229 sq. 


§ 151 ] ASYNDETON. 401 


καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ (cf., on the other hand, Mark vii. 35 ἠνοίγησαν 
αὐτοῦ ai ἀκοαὶ, καὶ ἐλύθη ὃ δεσμὸς τῆς γλώσσης αὐτοῦ), 1 Cor. ili. 2 
γάλα ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶμα. An analogous instance also to those 
given in the grammars, where the opposite idea must be educed, is 
found in 1 Tim. iv. 3 κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, where 
from the negative κωλυόντων the positive notion κελειύντων or the 
general λεγόντων (cf. § 189, 42 note p. 237; § 141, 2 p. 273) must be 
educed. 

Remark. Acts xx. 34 probably is hardly to be called a zeugma. 
And that in Jas. i. 9,10 by assuming this figure to occur, the peculiar 
force and beauty of the thought is positively impaired, is universally 
acknowledged now by the interpreters. 


IX. Asynpreton (PotysynpeEtTA). 
B. p. 453 (581); H. § 854; C. § 707g.-j.; D. § 626; J. § 792. 

The inquiry how far the several clauses, both within the 
confines of a larger period and also the larger clauses among 
themselves, are joined together by conjunctions, or stand side 
by side asyndetically, or are connected differently and by 
means of different conjunctions than is wont to be the case in 
Greek authors, opens a wide field; and to treat it exhaustively 
would require a special and detailed examination in which 
the style of the individual writers should be carefully discrim- 
inated. Much that belongs to such a discussion, however, 
has already been treated of in other parts of this Grammar, 
particularly in §§ 139, 149, 150; e.g. the frequent connection 
of sentences and members of sentences by means of καί (John 
x. 3,12; Acts xiii. 36; xvii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 4sq.; Jas. v.17, 
18; see the other examples of polysyndetic connection in 
§ 144, 1 p. 288 sq.), the use of the simple δέ or even καί instead 
of wev ... δέ elsewhere more usual (§ 149, 11 p. 364; 8 b) 
Ρ. 861 sq.), of οὕτως at the beginning of the conclusion (§ 149, 
1 p. 357), ete. 


Here may be mentioned also, the connection (certainly unclassic) 
of historical events, in pursuing a narrative, by means of the adverb 
τότε, Which thus (like the Latin tum) acquires almost the character 
of a conjunction. This use is particularly current in Matthew, 
e.g. iii. 15 εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν - ἄφες ἄρτι.... τότε ἀφίησιν αὐτόν, iv. 9 sq. 
λέγει αὐτῷ ταῦτά σοι πάντα δώσω ..." τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὃ Ἰησοῦς etcy 
11 τότε ἀφίησιν αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος, ix. 6, etc. 

A great number of examples οὗ asyndeton, i.e. of asyn- 

51 


31 


344 


402 ASYNDETON. [8 151 


detically repeated single parts of a sentence, are already 
contained in 28 a) p. 898. It remains for us to consider here 
the most common instances of asyndetic juxtaposition of a 
different nature: and 1) those in which single parts of a 
sentence, 2) those in which entire independent sentences, 
succeed one another without a connective. 
1) In the case of single parts of a sentence, asyndetic 
sequence occurs 
a) With two Imperatives of which the first contains merely 
the formal introduction to the second and main command, as in Matt. 
v. 24 ὕπαγε διαλλάγηθι, xviii. 15 ὕπαγε ἔλεγξον, Mark i. 44; ii. 9 ταῦ 
[eds. 2, 7 ; ed. 8 adds καὶ, so cod. Sin.], 11 ἔγειρε ἄρον τὸν κράββατόν 
cov. Cf. with this the combinations ὁρᾶτε βλέπετε ἀπὸ ..., ὁρᾶτε 
μηδεὶς γινωσκέτω, in ὃ 189, 49 p. 243. 
b) In enumerations,—whether consisting of substantives, as 
Rom. i. 29 sq. ψιθυριστάς, καταλάλους, ὑβριστάς etc., 2 Cor. xii. 20 ἔρις, 
ζῆλος, θυμοί etc., Gal. v. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 4 (see, on the other hand, the 
polysyndeton in Rev. v. 12, etc.), or epithets, as 1 Tim. iii. 2 8α. δεῖ τὸν 
ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα 
etc., Tit. 1. 6; ii. 4; Jas. i. 8, ete. 
c) for rhetorical reasons (cf. 28 a) p. 398), eg. Mark iv. 39 
σιώπα, πεφίμωσο, 1 Cor. iv. 8 ἤδη κεκορεσμένοι ἐστέ, ἤδη ἐπλουτήσατε, 
χωρὶς ἡμῶν ἐβασιλεύσατε, Jas. v. ὅ, ὁ (ἐτρυφήσατε καὶ ἐσπαταλήσατε, 
ἐθρέψατε, κατεδικάσατε, ἐφονεύσατε), 1 Tim. iii. 16 etc., particularly in 
contrasting antithetic ideas and clauses, since the antithesis (as in 
Latin) comes out more emphatically by means of rhetorical asyndeton, 
than where the contrast is made by the help of adversative conjunc-: 
tions, as 1 Cor. xv. 4284. σπείρεται ἐν φθορᾷ, ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ" 
σπείρεται ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δόξῃ etc., John iv. 22 ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε 
8 οὐκ οἴδατε, ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν, vi. 63, etc. Compare with 
this the mode of contrasting two sentences in ὃ 139, 28 p. 226. 

3 2) Entire independent sentences, on the other hand, are 
subjoined asyndetically to what precedes, especially in the 
three following -cases : 


a) Pre-eminently characteristic of John is asyndeton in the 

845 narration of historic facts following each other, —their intimate 
connection being indicated, as a rule, by letting the predicate 
precede at the very head of the sentence; as, John i. 40 λέγει 
αὑτοῖς etc., 42 εὑρίσκει οὗτος πρῶτος etc., 46 εὑρίσκει Φίλιππος τὸν Ναθα- 
ναὴλ, 47 λέγει αὐτῷ, 48 εἶδεν Ἰησοῦς, 49 λέγει αὐτῷ... ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, 

50, 51 ἀπεκρίθη etc., Matt. xx. 7 λέγουσιν αὐτῷ - ... λέγει αὐτοῖς - XXv. 

21 ἔφη αὐτῷ ὃ κύριος, xxvii. 65 ἔφη αὐτοῖς etc. That this species of 


§ 151.] ASYNDETON. 403 


asyndeton has been marred by the copyists times without number, by 
the insertion of such particles as δέ, γάρ, οὖν, etc., see e.g. in ὃ 149, 9 
p- 363, and cf. the critical commentaries on the N. T. 

b) Further, entire passages of considerable length often stand 
asyndetically, especially in the didactic style, in order to indicate the 
commencement of anew subject: see e.g. from the Ep. to the Rom. 
viii. 16; ix.1; x.1; xiii. 1; from the lst Ep. to the Cor. iv. 14; v.9; 
vi. 1; vi. 12; ix. 1; x. 23; xiv. 1, ete. 

6) Lastly, smaller, proverb-like} didactic utterances and 
sayings are put together asyndetically. Of these the Sermon on the 
Mount and the discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John afford 
numerous examples, as well as the many separate commands and 
exhortations in the hortatory portions of the Epistles and the Apoca- 
lypse. See Matt. chaps. v. to vii.; John iii. 5-8; xii. 19; v. 23, 28, 
30-33, 385 sqq.; vii. 16sqq.; 1 Thess. v. 14; James chaps. iv. and v; 
_ Rev. ii 10, 11; iii. 2, 6, ete. 





I. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 





The Figures refer to Pages. 





Absolute cases, see Accusative, Gen- 
itive, Participle, etc. 

Abstracts in the Plur. 77; without an 
Art. 89; in the Acc. with cognate 
verb 148, and in the Dat. 183. 


Accusative, the Alexandrian in ν 18. 
Syntax of 146 sqq.; with intransi- 
tives 147; of an abstract akin to 
the verb 148, 189; double 149, 152; 
Greek 152, cf. 183, 189; pronom- 
inal neuter instead of a different 
case 152; of time and distance 
152 sq., cf. 170; as an adverb 153 ; 
as a parenthetic adjunct 153; of ex- 
clamation 154; of the object with 
the Passive 148, 188 ; with the Mid- 
dle 191 sq.; absolute of participles 
317, cf. 874 8ᾳ.; absolute at the 
beginning 381. With Infin. 272 sqq., 
interchanged with ὅτι 383. 

Acts The, see Luke. 

Adjectives, lingering, in Nom. 78; 
diverging in Gend. or Num. 80; 
for adverbs 82 sq.; predicative with- 
out Art. 94, and with Art. 124; use 
of neuter 122; Gen. of a subst. for 
161; κατά and Acc. for 156, 162; κ. 
with Gen. for 335 ; ἐν with Dat. for 
331; verbal 41, 190. 

Adverbs: 69,319; adjectives for 82sq.; 
neuters as 96, 123; as predicates 
131; in elliptical construction 138 ; 
‘participles for 299; in cases of at- 
traction 377 ; of place, loose use and 
attraction of 70, 105, cf. 221 note. 
Cf. Particles. 

Adverbial adjuncts in the Nom. 139; 
separated from the Part. 388 ; sub- 
joined to a subst. with the Art. 91; 
without the Art. 95 sq. 

Aeolisms 61, 69. 

Alexandrian dialect 1. Forms: Acc. 
iny 13; names of Mts. 22 ; τέσσερα, 
κεκαθερισμένος, etc. 29; Aorist 39 ; 
84 Plur. in -cav 43; épavydw 58; 
ἧκα 59; λήμψομαι 62; καμμύω 62; 
κατενύγην 63; χεῶ 68 ; ἐδίδετο, etc. 
47. Phrases and constructions, see 
Septuagint. Cf. Language. 








Anacoluthon 378 sqq. ; with μέν 365. 


Analytical tendency in later (and 
especially N.T.) Greek: see Reso- 
lution, Periphrasis, Possessive ad- 
juncts, Subject, Object, Pleonasm, 
αὐτός, ἐγώ, etc. 


Anastrophe 72. 


Antithesis: antithetic arrangement 
of words etc. with negatives 346, 
349, 350, 352; indicated by δέ, καί, 
etc. 364 sq.; without aconnective 402. 


Aorist, the Alexandrian 39; Passive 
with Mid. or Intrans. force 51 sq., 
191; in sense of Perf. 197 sq. ; 
prophetic 198; proleptic 198; for 
the Pluperf. 199; gnomic (of habi- 
tude) 201 ; and Imperfect cf. 209. 


Apodosis wanting 386, 393. Cf. 
Aposiopesis, δέ, καί, οὕτως. 
Aposiopesis: 396; cf. 358, 386. 


Apposition 77 sq.; attracted by the 
Rel. 77; in the Nom. for some other 
case 78; in the Gen. 78, cf. 79 note; 
to the omitted subject 132; to the 
Voce. 141. 


Article the, εἷς for the indefinite 85 ; 
_ the definite. 85sq.; with proper 
names 86; with pronouns 87, 119; 
not used for the indefinite 87 sq., 
93 ; the rhetorical 88, 124; omitted 
87 sqq-, 91 sq.; with more closely 
defined substantives 90sq.; used 
twice or thrice 90, 98; expressed 
but once 92 sq., 97 sqq.; after τινές 
and other indefinite expressions 93, 
295 ; used absolutely, or in lieu of a 
subst. 94; with a Gen. following 
95; with an adverbial limitation 
95, 96 ; before entire clauses 96 sq. ; 
with several connected substs. 97sq. ; 
as a Demonstrative (postpositive, ὅς 
μέν etc.)101sq. Wanting with Poss. 
adjuncts 119; with Demonstratives 
when predicative 120; with predi- 
cates 124; inserted with predicates 
124. With the Voc. 140; with par- 
ticiples 124, 141, 309; with the Infin, 
266 sqq. 
405 


406 





Asking, verbs of, see épwray, 
ete. aes 


ing ete. 7. 
Asyndeton 226, 398, 401 sq. 
Attic declension 13, 21; Attic Gen.14. 


Attraction 376 sq.; of an appositive 
᾿ 77 s8q.; with the Infin. 278; in re- 
lative sentences 285 sq. ; faulty 287 ; 
with adverbs 287, 377; inverse 288 ; 

of the participle 305. 


Attributives, agreement of with sub- 
stantives 80sq.; with the Art. 87, 
89 sq.; belonging to several sub- 
stantives 129. See Adjectives, Pro- 
nouns, Participles, ete. 


Augment: neglected 32, 33, 34; 
double 35 ; superfluous 53, 63. 


Aspiration, before a ‘smooth breatli= = 


Blending of two constructions 318; 
of the Active and the Passive 384 ; 
of the direct and the indirect state- 
ment 385. Cf. variatio structurae. 

Brachylogy 395 sq.; in comparisons 
167, 177; with direct discourse, 
questions, etc. 250 sq. ; 272 sq.; with 
ἐπεί, ἀλλά 359, 369; with ἄρχεσθαι 
374; with ἀπό 322 sq.; ἐκ 327; els 
332 sq. For other reffs. see 396. 


Breathings 7; over p 33. 


Capernaum, ἡ ἰδία πόλις 118. 
Cardinals, see Numerals 


Cases, the oblique 141 sqq.; of parti- 
ciples 305, 308. See Acc. Dat. 
Gen. ete. 


Causal sentences 939 sq.; particles 
233. 


Cities names of, how declined 18; 
Gend. of 21; use of Art. with 86. 


Clauses, leading instead of suordi- 
nate 289; dependent passing over 
into leading 282 sq., 357, 383, 


Command, construction with words 
of 275 sq. 

Comparative degree, fornis of 27 sq. ; 
for the Pos. 83; for the Superl. 83 ; 
strengthening of 83 ; with ὑπέρ 335 ; 
παρά 339; πρός 340; expressed by 
ἤ 360. 

Comparison 27; double 28; brevilo- 
quence in 167 sq., 177, 393; gnomic 
Aor. in 202. 

Complutensian text 3. 


Compound verbs, construction of 344. 











Crasis 10. ae 


Sek Ὁ 
Dative, with substs. 92, 179 ε 
elliptical phrases 138; a Ds 
itation instead of the 









ete. 177; of rtin; cen 
ete.177; with ὁ αὐτός 1 77 ; com 
etc. 178; oY 179; of s 
tive judgment 179 ; with compo 
180, 344; of the Thing 


instrumental 181, with ἐν 182 ; of 
mode, closer limitation, ἘΠ 188 ; of 
cognate abstract (χαρᾷ χαίρειν, ete.) 
183 ; with verbs of going 184; of 
emotion 185; consilii 185; of time 


2 


186 ; two Datives 186 sq.; with the 
Passive 187 ; with verbal Adjs. 190; 
with adverbs 320; Datives absolute 
143 N.?; 316; Pauline Dat. after 
ζῇν, στήκειν, etc. 178. 


Dawes’s Canon 213; see Goodwin in 
Trans. of Amer. Philolog. Assoe. for 
1869-70, pp. 46-55. 

Declension of nouns, unusual forms 
τ first 11; second 12; third 18 sq. ; 
of foreign proper names 15 sqq.; 
anomalous 22sq.; of ἄς 
25 sq. 

Demonstratives 103sqq.; omitted — 
before Rel. 104sq., 286, ef. 395; 

reparatory (before ἵνα, ὅτι, and the 

fin.) 105, 240, 262, 263, cf. 400; 
constr. ad syn. with 105sq. See 
Pronouns, 











ie fo nents Passive 51; in passive 
Deriva ἘΞ of words 73. 

Direct discourse for oblique 215, 245, 

ΡΥ δ. 257, 272, -377; r verbs of 


geming BF 2; passes into indirect and 

vice versa 385 ; several direct sen- 

tences in succession 245. Cf. Vari- 

atio structurae. 

st ibutive expressions 30, 331, 335. 

5 forms 2, 13, 49, 61, 66; Gen. 20. 
S, use of the Art. in 88; 

ἐπαπ of verb in 137, 
"Dual the, not used in N.T. 11. 


᾿ Huision 10 sq. 

- Ellip is 390 sqq.: of the predicate 
f 2, 394; of the participle 392, 395, 
ef. Participle ; With ἀλλά, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
392; of a general term 392 sq., 
394 sq.; after ef δὲ μή 393; of an 
entire clause 395; of οὗτός ἐστιν 896; 
of a verbum dicendi, ete. 896. For 
other references see p. 391. 


~ Emotion verbs of, how construed 147, 


᾿ς Enallage of tenses 195. 


tions, adverbs of place, see Prepo- |. 


164 sq , 185, 300, 337. 
Of preposi- 


sitions, Adverbs, etc. 

Enclitics 6. 

Enumerations 402. 

Epexegesis 399 ; such additions often 
er παν 399 ; epexegetic Infin. 400 ; 
additions connected by καί epexege- 
tic at most only in sense 400. 


Feminine Sing. instead of neuter 123. 

Festivals Jewish names of 23. 

Final letters 5. 

Final sentences 228, 229, 231, 
233 sqq., 261, 264, 270; a Fut. Part. 
for 296; a Pres. Part. for 297; 
placed first 390. 


Foreign words, spelling of 6; declen- 
sion of 15sqq.; interpreted 128. 


Future the : subjunctive 35 ; Attic in 
ιῷ 37; supposed cireumflexed 38 ; 
Act. for Mid. 53; Pass. of depo- 


nents in passive sense 52 ; stands for, 
and is interchanged with, the Sub- 
junc. 208, 209, 211sq., 214, 219, 221, 
922, 228, 231, 234, 243, 255, 383; 
and Subjune. in one sentence 212, 
229, 234, 242, 255; for the Opt. 

with ἄν in supposition 218; after 
ἐάν and ὅταν 222 sq.; with ἄν 228, 
231, cf. 223; for the Impera. 257, 
cf. 243 note, 290; written periphras- 
tically 311. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 





407 


Gender, see Neuter, Feminine, Mas. 
6. 


Genitive the, in apposition 78; used 
for a different case 80 note; with 
the superlative 84 ; osition of with 
Art. 93; after of, τό, τά, 95; use of 
154 sqq. ; accumulation of genitives 
154 ; periphrasis for 156 ; of Poss. 
Pron. for the objective 157 ; of the 
country 157 ; of separation 157 Sq: 5 
partitive 158; after adverbs of time 
159; with Bea, διδόναι, etc. 159; 
with verbs of partaking, etc. 160; 
of touching, etc. 160; doubled with 
verbs 160, 165, 167 note ; foran Adj. 
161; with vids etc. 161 sq. ; of ma- 
terial 162 ; rhetorical and hebraistic 
162 ; after εἶναι and γίνεσθαι 162 sq.; 
with words of plenty, etc. 163; of 
price 164; of accusing 165 ; of per- 
ception (ἀκούειν) 165 sq.; of taste, etc." 
167 ; Gen. of comparison 168 ; with 
verbs of ruling 169; after an Adj. 
or Part. 169 sq. ; of time and place 
170 sq. ; elliptical 171; a Gen. and 
an Inf. dependent on one Subst. 260; 
position of in prepositional phrases 
343 ; separated from its governing 
substantive 387; of a Pers. Pron. 
for the Dat. 388. 


Genitives absolute: Passive 314, 
cf. 315 note; against the rule 315; 
without a subject 316 ; with ὡς 318. 


sie els (the synoptic) peculiarities of 
their language: ἡμῶν, etc. 116; τί 
ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, etc. 138; ἰδού 139; 
ὁμολογεῖν 176; ὑπάγειν 204; ἄφες 
210 ; εἰ with Opt. not found in 224; 
ὦτα ἀκούειν 259; Inf. with τοῦ 266; 
κελεύειν 275; καὶ ἐγένετο 276; ἦν 
foll. by Part. 311; ; μέν 364. See 
Matthew, etc. 


Greek the later, see Language. 


Hebraisms, Oriental modes of ex- 
pression, etc. 1, 75; plurals 23, 77 ; 
eis for πρῶτος | and τὶς 29 sq-, 85; δύο 
δύο 30; ἅγια ἁγίων 83, cf. 24; peri- 
phrasis ‘of Prepp. by means of στόμα, 
χείρ, etc., 90, 182, 187, 319; εἷς 
repeated 102 86. ; in use of Prons. 
(cf. Pronouns, αὐτός, ete.) 118 sq. ; 
mas ov, etc. 121 ; Fem. for Neut. 123 ; 
καὶ ἐγένετο ete., ἀνέβη ἐπὶ καρδίων, 
135, 276; τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί 188 ; Art. 
with the Voc. 140; ἐν after ὀμνύειν 
147 ; αὔξειν αὔξησιν, etc. 148; διδά- 
σκειν τινί 149; ποιεῖν, εἶναι εἴς τι 150; 
λογίζεσθαι εἴς τι 161] ; καλεῖν ὄνομα 
151; ὁδὸν θαλάσσης 153; ἀπό, ἐκ. 
for the simple Gen. 158; τέκνα 


408 


φωτός and the like 161 sq. ; ἐνώπιον 
172, 180, 319; πιστεύειν 1738q.; 
ἐλπίζειν 175; ὁμολογεῖν 176; with 
ἐν 181, 329; χαρᾷ χαίρειν and the 
like 183; πορεύεσθαι ὁδῷ, etc. 184; 
ἐν εἰρήνῃ and eis εἰρήνην 184; Pres. 
Part. for Fut. Pass. 190sq.; εἰ in 
questions 248 sq.; Fut. for Impera. 
257, cf. 248; καὶ ἔσται 278; αὐτός 
in Rel. sentences 280; participle for 
finite verb 290; προσέθετο 299 sq. ; 
ἰδὼν εἶδον, etc. 313 sq.; ἐν ἡμέρᾳ fol- 


lowed by a Part. 316; ἀπό after. 


φυλάσσειν, etc. 323; ἐκ κοιλίας μη- 
τρός 527; εἰ in negative oaths 358 ; 
καὶ ἰδού at beginning of apodosis 
362; pleonastic constructions (ἀνοῖ- 
Ear τὸ στόμα, etc.) 398. Cf. Sep- 
tuagint. 

Hebrews, Ep. to the, style of 51 note, 
75, 142; particular instances of 
peculiarity: εὐαρεστεῖσθαι 185; In- 
fin. after Adjs. and Substs. 259; 
after Prepp. 263; participles 289 ; 
in quoting the O.T. follows cod. 
Alex. 291; λανθάνειν, etc. 299; 
πάρά 339; μὲν... δέ as used in 364; 
arrangement of words in 389; του- 
τέστιν in 400. 


Hiatus not shunned as in Attic Greek 
10. 


Hyperbaton 331 sq.; in cases of ap- 
position 77 sq.; οὐ μετὰ πολλάς 104; 
πρὸ ἕξ ἡμερῶν, ἀπὸ σταδίων, etc. 153. 
Hypothetical sentences, see Con- 


ditional, ete. 


Illative sentences 243 ; expressed by 
eis τὸ 264 564. 

Imperative the, to be supplied 137, 
138; Perfect and Aorist 206 ; nega- 
tive 211; in the protasis, 227; after 
ἵνα 234; ἵνα as a circumlocution for 
241; after ὥστε 244; after ὅτι 246; 
expressed by the Fut. 257, cf. 243 
note ; by aquestion 258; by an Infin. 
271; instead of the Infin. after verbs 
of asking 272; followed by a Fut. 
290; two Imperatives connected by 
καί 290, without καί 243, 402; repe- 
tition of 398. 


Imperfect the, used apparently for the 
Aorist 200; de conatu 205. 


Impersonal verbs 135; in the parti- 
ciple 318. 


Inclination of the accent 6. 
Indeclinable nouns 23 ; with the Art. 
86. 


Indefinite Pron. the, to be supplied 
159 ; with participles 295. 





INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


Indicative the, Pres. for the Subjune. 
208 sq., 210, 222, 227sq., 231, 
234 sq.; for the optative 215, 220, 
231. 

Infinitive the, 258 sqq.; after cre 244; 
after verbs 258sq., 261; after a 
Subst. or an Adj. 259; Inf. exple- 
tivus 259; dependent with a Gen. 
upon a single substantive 260; ina 
telic sense 261; in a parenthetic 
clause 261; with the Art. 261 sq. ; 
as subject 262; after a preparatory 
Demons. 262, 263; as object 262; 
after a Prep. 263; in the Dat. 264; 
with τοῦ 266; epexegetic 260 Rem., 
265, 268, 398; for the imperative 
271; used absolutely 271 ; with Ace. 
272sq.; implying obligation, ete. 
273 ; after κελεύειν, etc. 275; passive 
for Act. 275; after καὶ ἐγένετο 276; 
attraction (Nom. Gen. Dat.) in con- 
nection with 278; separated from 
its governing participle 388. 

Inflection, the weak (of foreign 
names) 19. 

Interchange of tenses, see Enallage. 


Interpretations given in the Gr. text 
125, 128; see Epexegesis. 

Interrogative particles 247 sqq. ; 
not standing at the beginning 388. 

Interrogative sentences, direct 
246 sq., double 249sq., instead of 
indirect 250; indirect 249sq., 377; 
Art. before 96; instead of Relative 
sentences 251 ; placed first 390. 


Introductory formula 137. 


Tonic forms 2,7,11, 15, 44. See Con- 
traction. 


James, style of 202, 203 note. 


John (cf. Gospels) peculiarities of : use 
of πρῶτος with Gen. 84; of Poss. 
Prons. 115; of the Art. with the 
predicate 123 sq.; of %e 139; of 
ὄνομα αὐτῷ 139; of πιστεύειν 174; 
of ἔδωκα and δέδωκα 199 ; of ὑπάγειν 
204 ; of the Pres. for the Fut. 205 ; 
of iva 230, 244 note, 264, 266; of 
questions with μή 248 ; of asyndeton 
363 sq., 402 ; of a participial passing 
over into a leading clause 382; of 
the negatived contrary in repetition 
399. 


Language popular and the later Greek 
(cf. the Preface): use of double 
comparison 28; ἀναπαήσονται 65; 
wiv 66; eis καὶ εἷς 103 ; its loose use 
of local particles 71, 105, 221 note, 
377 sq. ; and employment of the re- 


INDEX: OF 


flexives 110; of ὅστις 115; Of ἴδιος 
117; of the constr. ad syn. in the 
Pred. 129sq.; immoderate use of 
Prons. see Pronouns; use of δού 139; 
of Nom. with Art. for the Voc. 149; 
of the dativus ethicus 179; of the 
tenses 196 ; of the gnomic Aor. 202 ; 
Ace. after the Pass. 189; ὑπάγειν 
to go away 204; use of the moods 
207; Indic. for Subjunc. 209, 210, 
222; ἄφες 210; optative little used 
215; ἵνα 236 sq., for an Infin. 258 ; 
questions without an interrogative 
word 247; elliptical use of Infin. 
Absol. 271; αὐτός in place of the 
Rel. 283; attraction 285; artificial 
periods avoided 288 sq., 378 sq., cf. 
227 ; two imperatives 290, cf. 227 ; 
use of ἦν, ἦσαν with participle 312; 
lax use of ἐν 328, and εἰς 332; fond 
of καί 361; prone to anacoluthon 
878 sq. Cf. Alexandrian dialect, 
Resolved, etc. 


Latin words in Greek 16 sq. 


Latinisms (on the influence of the 
Latin language see the Preface) : 
πόλις τῆς Σαμαρείας, etc. 78; in the 
use of οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος, etc. 103 sq. ; 
Voe. without ὦ 140 ; προάγειν, προέρ- 
χεσθαί τινα 144; νικᾷν ἐκ 147; ἀπό 
and πρό in specifications of time and 

lace 153; γαμηθῆναι with Dat.177; 

ubjunctive for Optative 215; In- 
dicative in general relative clauses 
228; in construction of κελεύειν 
and similar words 237 note, 275; 
ἵνα μή (ne dicam) 241; in the use 
of a Relative for a continuative 
Demons. 283 sq.; ἀπό with φοβεῖσθαι, 
etc. 323; ἐν with τιθέναι, etc. 329 ; 
σύν for and 331. 


Local particles, loose use and attrac- 
tion of 70 sq., 105, 221 note, 377 sq. 
Cf. Particles. 


Luke, the style of 75. Details: ἀνήρ 
φονεύς, etc. 82; Art. before entire 
clauses 96; αὐτός as Subj. 108; 
Neut. participle 122; Voc. with ὦ 
140; use of the construction ἀπὸ 
κοινοῦ 142, 160, 332; use of ἅδης 
171; use of the moods 208; the 
Optative 215, 218, 224, 230, 254, 
256; ἄν with ὅπως 234 ; ἵνα and ὅπως 
in the Acts 235 sq.; ὡς with Infin. 
244; dpa 247; ei in direct questions 
248; interrogative periphrasis for 
the Imperative 258 ; Intin. after verbs 
signifying to request, etc. 258; Fut. 
Infin. after μέλλειν in the Acts 259 ; 
Infin. after prepositions 263 ; with 
τοῦ 266; with Acc. after ἔξεστιν 


52 


SUBJECTS. 409 


278 sq.; relative clauses as codrdi- 
nate 283 ; his use of attraction 285, 
cf. 304; participles 289 ; λανθάνειν, 
προστιθέναι, etc., with Part. 299; 
ὁ καλούμενος 304; participle with 
εἶναι 312; periphrases with ἐν 330 ; 
κατά with a in local sense 334 ; 
ἐπί with Dat. 337 note; πρός with 
Gen. once 340; pleonastic μή with 
the Inf. 355; use of wév..... dé 364; 
transition to indirect discourse 385 ; 
arrangement of words 389; aposi- 
opesis 396. On the difference be- 
tween the style of the Gospel anil 
the Acts see 264, cf. 277. 


Macedonian dialect 1. 
Manuscripts of the N.T. 2. 

ι Mark, style of, see Gospels. Fond of 
the periphrastic Part. and εἶναι 312 ; 
(doubtful) use of μὲν οὖν 370. 


Masculine the, its use for other gen- 
ders, see constructio ad syn. 

Matthew style of, see Gospels. Ser- 

._ mon on the Mt., use of Aor. Subj. 
and negative imperative in 211; 
asyndeton in 403. His omission of 
μέν 864; his use of the Adv. τότε 
as a Conjunc. 401; (does not use 
μὲν οὖν 370). 

Metaplasms 23. 

Middle the, 191 sq.; distinguished in 
the N.T. from the Active 193. 

Moods the 207 sqq. 


Motion verbs of with the Infin. 261, 
270. 


Mountains, Gend. of names of 21 sq. 


Negations, how expressed in N. T. 
344 sq.; similar sometimes annul 
each other 354 sq. ; relative denial 
of the first of two clauses 356 ; mis- 
placement of negative particle 389 ; 
periphrasis of negatives 121, cf. 389. 


Neuter the, used adverbially 96, 123; 
Sing. of adjectives and participles 
122, Plur. of ditto 123 ; of a Pron. for 
some other gender 127, 128; Plur. 
with verb in Sing. (or Plur.) 125; 
Sing. as predicate instead of the 
Mase. or Fem. 127; Plur. of a Rel. 
referring to a Masc. or Fem ante- 
cedent 282, 

Nominative the, used in apposition 
instead of other cases 78 sq., cf. 141, 
298; with ἰδού, ἴδε 139; and Acc. 
blended 139 ; used adverbially 139 ; 
for the Voc.140 ; double periphrased 
by eis 150 ; instead of the Acc. after 
verbs of naming 151. 





410 


Nominatives absolute 292, 298, 
317, 379. 

Nouns, see Proper Names, Mountains, 
ete., and ef. the Table of Contents. 


Number, see Plural, Singular. 
Numerals 28 sq. 


Oaths, elliptical use of εἰ in 358. 


Object, ἃ common not repeated 142 ; 
repeated 142 ; omission of 144, with 
partitive Gen. 158; ellipsis of a 
suggested 146, ; 

Objective sentences (with ὅτι etc.) 
245 sq. 

Optative omitted in wishes 137; as the 
mood of wishing 214, 233 sq.; asa 
dependent mood rarely used in N.T. 
215, 256 ; with ἄν 217 sq. ; Subjune. 
as its substitute 256. 

Oriental expressions, see Hebra- 
isms. 


Parables, use of the Art. in 125. 


Participle the, in the Nom. instead of 
some other case 78, 298 ; of irregular 
Gend. or Numb. 80 sq.; instead of 
a Rel. clause 78, 93; in the Gen. 
instead of some other case 80 note; 
in the Neut. 122; with the Art. as 
a predicate 124, 309; constr. ad 
syn. with 130, cf. 298; with the Art. 
after the imperative 141; Fut. and 
Pres, instead of the Lat. in -ndus 
190sq.; Aor. and Pres. discriminated 
201; Pres. for Fut. 206, 297,307; Fut. 
is periphrased 241. General use of 
288 sqq.; has given way in N.T. to 
finite constructions 289 ; apparently 
instead of a finite verb 291 ; ellipti- 
cal and anacoluthic 292, 298, 382 ; 
as a substitute for a Rel. clause 294 ; 
with and without the Art. 294 sq.; 

. future 296; present as timeless 
296 sq.; de conatu 297; several 
successive with or without καί 297 ; 
containing the leading idea (with 
λανθάνειν etc.) 299; instead of, and 
interchangeably with, a clause with 
ὅτι 300 sq. ; after verbs of emotion 
800 ; Acc. with after verbs of per- 
ception 301, 305; omitted 304, 308, 
392, 395, see Ellipsis ; in attraction 
305 ; with particles (és ete.) 306 sq. ; 
with εἶναι and γίνεσθαι as a peri- 
phrasis of simple tense-forms 308 sq., 
351, cf. 124; pleonastic (ἰδὼν εἶδον, 
etc.) 313; in Gen. Absol. 314 sq. ; 
Dat. 316; Acc. 317; Nom. 317, cf. 
Nom. Absol.; ἐν with Dat. as a 
substitute for 330sq.; werd with 
Gen. as a substitute for 338 ; passes 
msensil ly over into a finite verb 382, 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


Particles the, 70sq.; lax use of 70. 
105, 221 note, 378 ; with participles 
306 sq.; misplaced 389. 


Partitive Gen. position of 93; peri- 
phrases for 158 ; as subject, ete. 158; 
after verbs 159. 


Passive the, 187 sqq. ; with Prep. 187; 
with the Dat. 187; with Ace. of 
thing 188sq.; of verbs governing 
Gen. or Dat. 189; personal con- 
struction with 377. 


Paul’s style : his use of a periphrastie 
Gen. 78 ; intermediate location of 
ὑμῶν etc. 117; omission of the copula 
136, 217; use of Dat. (in Gv θεῷ, 
etc.) 178; use of ἐν κυρίῳ 185, cf. 
176; free use of Acc. after Pass. 
190 ; distinction recognized between 
ἐνεργεῖν and ἐνεργεῖσθαι 193; sup- 
pers use of ἄν for ἐάν 220 note, ef. 

llipsis; use of εἴτε... .. εἴτε 221; 
fond of questions with οὐ 247 ; use of 
ἄρα 247 ; uh γένοιτο 248 ; Infin. after 
a preposition 263, cf. 266; use of 
the participle 289 sq.; of a partici- 
pial for a finite. clause 382; use of 
the elliptical ὡς ὅτι 358; of the 
strengthened ἄρα οὖν 371; indulges 
in anacoluthon and loose construe- 
tion 386; use of ellipsis with οὐ 
μόνον δέ etc. 393; the epexegetical 
τουτέστιν 400. 


Kibet verbs of, constructions 
with 165 sq., 301. 


Perfect the, Middle has Act. sense 
194 ; in sense of Aor. 196 sq.; pro- 
leptic 198 ; periphrastic forms 313. 


Periphrasis by means of the Gen. 
78; for simple Prep. 90; periphras- 
tic forms of negatives 121; of an 
Adj. by a Subst. in Gen. 161; by 
κατά with Acc. or Gen. 162, 335; 
of simple tense-forms by a Part. with 
εἶναι (γίνεσθαι) 124, 808, 251; of the 
Intin. by wa 236, 239, 259; of the 
Fut. Part. by ἵνα 241; of the Im- 
perative by ἵνα 241; by a Fut. ora 

uestion 257 sq., cf. 243 note; of an 

dj. or Part. by means of ἐν 330 sq., 
of werd 338 sq. Periphrasis of cases 
by means of prepositions 142 sqq. : 
instead of the double Acc. 149; of 
the Greek Acc. 152; of the subjec- 
tive and objective Gen. 156; of the 
Gen. of separation 157 sq.; of the 
partitive Gen 158; of the dative 





of the person by means of eis, 
ἐνώπιον, 172 sq.; of the Dat. of 
thing by means of ἐν, ἐπί, 181 sqq. 


Persons names of, see Proper names. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


Personal Construction with Passives 
in attraction 376 sq. 


_ Personal pronouns, see Pronouns. 

Peter, style of 203 note; his use of 
ἴδιος 117 note. 

Place, particles of, loosely used 71,105, 
221 note, 377 sq. Cf. Particles. 
Pleonasm : see p. 397 and the refer- 

ences given there. 

Pluperfect the, without augment 33 ; 
ending of 3d Plur. Act. 43; useof199; 
periphrastic form of 313. 

Plural for the Sing. 77, 126, 130, 282; 
alleged Plur. excellentiae 77; nouns 
Plur. only 23 sq., 77; Plur. majes- 
taticus 131. 


Polysyndeta 401. 

Positive the, instead of the super- 
lative 83 ; for the comparative 360. 

Possessive pronouns, use of the 
Art. with 87; periphrasis for 116, 
see Pronouns ; use of ἴδιος for 117 ; 
Possessive limitations needlessly 
expressed 118,194 ; used objectively 
157. Cf. Pronouns. 


Predicate the, anarthrous 94, 123; 
with the Art. 123sq.; of several 
subjects 129 ; constr. ad syn. in 129; 
precedes in clauses after καὶ ἐγένετο 
277, cf. 373. 

Pregnant construction 395. 

Prepositions the, general use of 
321 sqq.; elision with 10sq., 111; 
periphrased by substantives 90, 187, 
319; in elliptical phrases 138; with 
the Infin. 263; newly formed 319 ; 
before abverbs 320; rule respecting 

_ the repetition of with several con- 

nected substantives 341, and with 
the Rel. and its antecedent 342; in 
composition 844, 


Present the, circumflexed 38, 205, 209, 
235 ; historic 196 sq.; with force of 
the perfect 203 ; with force of the 
future 203 sq., 219, 297, de conatu 
205, 297. See Indicative, Partici- 
ple, ete. 

Prolepsis 198, 356. 


Pronouns the, 103 sqq. Omission of 
Demons. before Rel. 104 8α.; re- 
dundant 105; constructio ad synesin 
with 105 sq. ; use of αὐτός 107 ; per- 
sonal for reflexive 110, 116, ef. 
αὐτοῦ ; reflexive of 3d Pers. for Ist 
or 2d Pers. 113; Indef. Pron. 114; 

- Interrog. Pron. 115; use of ὅστις 
115; periphrases for the possessives 
115sq.; use of ἴδιος 117; immod- 
erate and pleonastic use of 108,118, 





411 


182, 142, 194; use of the Art. with 
119 sqq.; referring as subject to a 
following predicate 125, 128 ; in the 
Neut. instead of some other gender 
128, cf. 125; in Acc. Neut. instead 
of some other case 152; use of a 
Possess. instead of the objective 
Gen. 157; Gen. of a Pers. Pron. 
for the Dat. 388. Cf. Demonstra- 
tives, Possessives, Reflexives, Rela- 
tives, ets 

Proper names, Hebr. how repro- 
duced in the N. T. 5sq.; diversity 
in spelling 6; declension of 15 sqq- ; 
use of the Art. with 86sq. See 
Cities, Countries, Mountains, Rivers, 
etc. 


Proverbial phrases, ete., copula 
omitted in 136, 138, 394 ; redundant 
pronouns in 280 ; independent Part. 
in 291; asyndeton with 403. 


Purpose, see Final sentences. 


Questions, see Interrogative sentences, 
etc. 


Quotations from the O.T.: Art. be- 
fore 96 ; subject unexpressed in 133, 
134; imitation of the Hebr. Rel. in 
280; Part. apparently used inde- 

endently in 291; the Ep. to the 

ebr. quotes the Alex. text of Sept., 
Paul the Vat. text 291; participial 
imitation of Hebr. Inf. Absol. in 
313; negatived substantives in 353 ; 
substituted for the grammatical 
apodosis 386 Rem. 


Receptus textus 3. — 

Refiexive pronouns 110sqq.; use 
of neglected 112, 116; of the 3d 
Pers. used for lst and 2d 113; ἴδιος 
takes the place of 117 sq. ; expressed 
with the Middle 194 ; with Acc. and 
Inf. 274. 


Relative pronouns: without an an- 
tecedent Demons. 104, 286, 395; in 
the Acc. akin to the verb (ὃ δὲ ζῶ, 
etc.) 148 sq.; taking a verb in Ist 
or 2d Pers. 281; conforming in Gend. 
to the Pred. of their own clause 
281; in the constructio ad synesin 
281 sq.; in attraction 285 sq.; hy- 
perbaton with 388 sq. Cf. ὅς. 

Relative sentences: expressed by 
a participle 78 sq.; oods in 
227 sqq.; to express purpose 228, 
229, cf. 231; interchanged with 
indirect interrogative sentences 
229 sq., 251, and even direct 252 sq. ; 
redundant αὐτός in 280; as co-ordi- 
nate leading clauses 283 ; pass over 


412 


into leading clauses 283, 382 ; blend- 
ing with a neighboring Demons. 
clause 284; incorporating into them- 
selves the governing noun 284, 286 ; 
a general Rel. clause instead of a 
conditional clause 288; pass into 
subordinate clauses of another sort 
383 ; anacoluthon occasioned by 
383. 


Repetition clauses denoting, how 
framed in N. T. 216, 232. 


Repetition oratorical 398 sq.; peri- 
phrastic 398; of the person ad- 
dressed 398 ; by means of the nega- 
tived contrary 399. 


Resolved or decomposed lan- 
guage of the later Greeks (partic- 
ularly of the N. T.): resolution of 
cases by means of Prep. 141 sq.; of 
the Infin. by ἵνα, ὅτι, etc., 236, 
238 sq., 272 sq.; of participial con- 
structions into leading clauses 289, 
cf. 401; of simple tense-forms by 
the Part. and εἶναι 308sq. Cf. also 
Periphrasis, Possessives, Subject, 
Object, Pleonasm, αὐτός, ἐγώ, ete. 

Revelation the, negligent, hebraistic, 
solecistic style of 2, 50, 75. Speci- 
fications: use of Alex. Acc. inv 13; 
κατήγωρ 25; κεκοπίακες 48 ; νικοῦντι 
44; 6 jv 50; ἐθαυμάσθην 59 ; appos- 
itive Nom 78, cf. 299 ; irregularities 
of Gend. in adjectival adjuncts 80, 
cf. 180 ; εἶδον καὶ ἰδού 139; νικᾷν ἐκ 
147; Gen. in specifications of size 
163; αἰνεῖν with Dat. 176 note (cf. 
διδάσκειν 149) ; ὑπάγω 204 ; ἵνα with 
Fut. 234; ἐδόθη ἵνα 238, cf. 234; 
Infin. with τοῦ and εἰς τὸ 263, 266 ; 
αὐτός in Rel. clauses 280; μετανοεῖν 
ἐκ 327; never uses μέν 364. Cf. 
Hebraisms. 


Rivers names of are Mase. 21; always 
take the Art. 87. 


Schema, ἀπὸ κοινοῦ 160, 178 note, 
181, 187, 332, 339, 355 ; Κολοφώνιον 
180 ; καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος 186. 


Sentences, connection of 401 (and 
refces. there); anacoluthon resulting 
from loose connection of 386. Cf. 
also Apodosis,Clauses, Conditional, 
Final, Illative, etc. 

Septuagint the, style of, and its in- 
fluence on the N.T.1,76. Syntacti- 
cal peculiarities: αὐτός as subject 
108 sq. ; ἑαυτοῦ and αὐτοῦ 111; pleo- 
nastic use of Prons. 118, cf. 142, and 
αὐτός, ἐγώ, etc., in the Greek Index ; 
αὔξειν αὔξησιν, etc. 148; ποιεῖν or 
εἶναι εἴς τι 150; λογίζεσθαι εἴς τι 





INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


151; καλεῖν ὄνομα 151; dorepets 
169 ; πιστεύειν 174 sq.; ἐλπίζειν 175; 
αἰνεῖν, ὁμολογεῖν 176; ὁμοιοῦν 
177 Ὀοΐ. ; χαρᾷ χαίρειν 183; ἀγαλ- 
λιᾶσθαι and similar verbs of emotion 
185 ; use of the Aor. 203 ; restricted 
in its use of moods 208 ; οὐ μή with 
Fut. and Subjune. 211, 212; Indie. 
with ἐάν 223; fond of direct dis- 
course 245; use of εὐ in questions 
249; τίς for ὅς 251; ὅ, τι for διὰ τί 
254; Infin. with τοῦ abounds in 
271; employs attraction 285 ; avoids 
participial constructions 289 ; use of 
προσέθετο 299 sq.; ἰδὼν εἶδον, etc. 
313; ἀπὸ after φυλάσσειν 324; ἐν 
instrumental like Hebr. a 829; for- 
mula in oaths 358sq.; ὅσον ὅσον 
373; θέλειν ἔν τινι 376; ἀνηγγέλη 
λέγοντες 384. For peculiarities in 
forms see Alexandrian dialect. 


Sermon on the Mt., Aor. Subjune. and 
Neg. Imperat. in 211; asyndeton in 
403. Cf. Matthew. 


Singular for the Plural of Substs. 
6sq.; predicate 126; with the Rel. 
281 sq. 
Subject the, pronominal freely ex- 
pressed 131sq.; unexpressed 132 sq. ; 
to be supplied by the reader 133; 
partit. Gen. taking the place of 158; 
separately expressed with Acc. and 
Inf. 274; subject of a dependent 
clause made the object of the leading 
clause 376. 


Subjunctive the, of the Fut. 35; of 
copula sometimes omitted 137; de- 
liberative 208 ; adhortative 209, 243, 
245; imperatival 211; Aor. after 
οὐ μή 211 sq. 218; takes the place of 
the Optat. as a dependent mood and 
after historical tenses 215, 223 sq., 
227, 230sq., 283, 242, 255, 256; 
Aor. with & 219; without & in 
general Rel. sentences 228; with 
particles expressing limit or goal 
230; after ὥστε 243. See Final 
Sentences, Future. 

Substantives derivation of 73; syn- 
tax of 76 sqq. ; Plur. forms for Sing. 
and vice versa 77; omitted 81 sq., 
189, see Ellipsis; several connected 
by καί pie without connective 
400 sq. Art. with, see Article. 

Superlative expressed by the positive 
83; by the comparative 84; for the 
comparative 84. 

Supposition expressed by theFut. 218. 

Synesin, see Constructio ad Syn. 

Synoptics, see Gospels. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. = 


Textus receptus 3. 

Temporal particles 230,cf. Particles. 

Temporal sentences 230 sqq.; ἐν 
with the Infin. to express time 
263 sq.; Kal ἐγένετο 276. 

Tenses use of the 194sqq. See Aorist, 
Future, etc., also Enallage. 

Trajection, see Hyperbaton. 

Transition from oratio obliqua to 
recta, etc., see Direct discourse, 
Participles, Variatio Structurae, 
etc. 


Variatio structurae 257, 271, 274, 
283, 293, 298, 318, 378 sq., 383. Cf. 
Blending, etc. 

Verbals in -ros 41(and -reos rare 190); 
construction of 190 sq. 

Verbs, augment of 32 sq.; forms of 
35 sqq., 42sq.; Fut. Subjune. 35; 





413 


Attic Fut. 38; Alex. Aor. 39; 8d 
Fut. 40; in A,u,v,p 41 ; contracted 
44; in μι 44sqq.; deponents Pass. 
51; anomalous list of 53 sqq.; 
syntax of 187 sqq.; active used in- 
transitively 144; finite instead of 
participles 289 τὰ construction of 
compound 344 ee Middle, Pass- 
ive, Moods, Tenses ; and on the con- 
struction of verbs of asking, etc., 
see δεῖσθαι, etc., in the Greek index. 

Vocative the, 138 sqq. ; with and with- 
out ὦ 140; Nom. used for 140 sq. 

Voices the, 187 sq. Cf. Middle, Pas- 
sive, Verb. 


Wish, copula omitted in current for- 
mulas for expressing 137; optative 
used in 214, 233 sq.; ἵνα after 237. 


Zeugma 400 sq. 


fl. INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. 





The Figures refer to Pages. 





changed into ein γήρει 15; in τέσσερα 

29; κεκαθερισμένος 29; in verbs in 
-dw 44. 

a Gen. -ns after a vowel or p11; with 
proper names 17. 

Gen. -as with proper names 17. 

-« Gen. -wy in names of cities 18. 

᾿Αβαρίμ, τό 22. 

ἄβυσσος, ἣ 12. 

ἀγαθός comparison 27. 

ἀγαθωσύνη 78. 

ἀγαλλιάομαι 51; constr. of 185; 
Participle 300. 

ἄγαλμα omission of 82. 

ἀγαπᾷν ἀγάπην 148s8q. 

ἀγάπη with ἐν and εἰς 329. 

ἄγαπητός constr. of 190. 

ἄγε Interjection 70. 

ἄγειν 53; used impersonally 134; and 
its compounds used intransitively 
144. 

ἅγια, τά, ἅγια ἁγίων 24, 83. 

ἁγιωσύνη 73. 

ἄγνυμι 53. 

ἀγοράζειν τιμῆς 164. 

᾿Αγρίππας 20. 

ἀγωνίζεσθαι ἀγῶνα 148. 

ἀδελφός omission of 94. 

ἅδης meaning and construction of 171. 

ἀδύνατόν ἐστι with Infin. 260. 

᾿Αερμών, τό and ἡ 22, 

ἄζυμα, τά 38. 

ἀθῷος ἀπό 158. 

αι and ε interchanged 5, 40 note. 

-at in Ist Aor. Opt. Act. 42. 

αἰχμαλωτεύειν αἰχμαλωσίαν 148. 

Αἴγυπτος without Art. 87; ἐν Αἰγύπτου 
171. 

αἰνεῖν constr. of 176 note. 

-aivw Aor. of verbs in 41. 

aipéw 53. 

-aipw Aor. of verbs in 41. 

αἴρω : Aor. Pass. in reflex. sense 52; sc. 
ἄγκυραν 146; constr. of 157 sq. 

αἰσχύνεσθαι ἀπό 192, 323. 

αἰτεῖν and compounds constr. of 149, 189; 
Aor. Mid. 191; Act. and Mid. 193 ; 
αἰτεῖσθαι ἵνα 237. 

αἰτιώματα, αἰτιάματα 78. 

αἰῶνες, οἱ 34, 


with 





αἰώνιος 26. 

ἀκατάπαστος, ἀκατάπαυστος 65. 

ἀκμήν adhue 153. ‘ 

ἀκούειν Fut. of 53; constr. of 165 sq 
301 sq.; ἀκοῇ 184; Perf. force of 
Pres. 203. 

&xpos in Neut. with Gen. following 94. 

᾿Ακύλας 20. , 

ἅλας, [ἅλα], GAs 24. 

ἀλείφεσθαι with Acc, 192. 

ἀλλά elided 10; οὐκ... ἀλλά 3563 for 
δέ 365; ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 868; ἀλλά but other- 
wise 369; οὐ yap ἀλλά 369; ἀλλ᾽ ἤ 
374; ἀλλά in ellipsis 392. 

ἀλλήλων 31. 

ἅλλομαι 54, " 

ἄλλος and ἕτερος 32, 102, 122; followed 
by Part. with Art.93, 295; redundant 
373 


&As, 6, ἅλας and ἅλα, τό, 24. 

ἁμαρτάνειν 54; ἁμαρτίαν 148 ; signif. and 
constr. of 173. 

ἀμύνειν in Middle 194 note. 

ἀμφιάζω 49. 

ἀμφιέννυμι, ἀμφιέζω 49; in Mid. 191. 

ἄν rare 72; for ἐάν 1 72, 220; use of 216; 
with Ind. Pret. 216, 224; supposed 
omission of with ἔδει etc. 216; with 
Subjune. 217, 231; with Optat. 217; 
in interrog. clauses 254; Subjune. 
with οὐ μή for οὐκ ἄν with Opt. 218; 
with Aor. Subjunc. 219 ; ὡς ἄν with- 
out a verb 219; omission of 225 
86. ; in relative sentences 227 sq.; 
with the Fut. 228, 231 cf. 222; ὅπου 
ἄν 228; with particles of time 231; 
with ὅπως 234. 

-w in 2d Aor. 848 Plur. 48 ; for -ασι in 
Perf. 43. 

ἀνά 331; used adverbially in distrib- 
utive sense 30, 331sq.; ἀνὰ μέσον 
332. 

ἀναβαίνειν Fut. force of 204. 

ἀνάγαιον, ἀνώγαιον, ἀνώγεων 18. 

ἀνάγομαι, ἀνήχθην 51. 

ἀναθεματίζειν ἀναθέματι 184. 

ἀναλύειν used intransitively 145. 

᾿Ανανίας 20. 

ἀναπαύεσθαι constr. of 158; ἀναπαήσονται, 
tvamratcovra 65. 


414 


GREEK 


ἀνάστα -στηθι 47. 

ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν 89. 

ἀναστρέφειν 145. 

ἀναφανέντες Κύπρον 190. 

᾿Ανδρέας 18. 

ἀνέβη ἐπὶ καρδίαν 135. 

ἀνέχομαι augment 35; ἀνέχεσθαι with 
Gen. 161. 

ἀνῆκεν 216. 

ἀνήρ, ἄνδρες omission and insertion of 
82; when anarthrous 89. 

ἀνθυπατεύειν 169. 

“Avva, -as 17. 

“Avvas 20. 

ἀνοίγω forms of 63; without object 145. 

ἄνομος with Gen. 169. 

ἀνορθώθη 34. 

ἀντί 321; ἀνθ᾽ ὧν 105; ἀντί with verbs of 
buying ete. 164; with Infin. 263. 

ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι always with Gen. 160; 
Mid. 194. 

᾿Αντίπας 20. 

ἀντιπέρα -ν accent etc. 321. 

ἀντίχριστος anarthrous use of 89. 

ἀνώτερος etc. 28. 

ἄξιος constr. of 240 cf. 229. 

ἀπαγγέλλειν ἵνα 237. 

ἀπαντήσω 53. 

ἀπαρνήσεται 53. 

ἀπάρτι 321. 

ἀπειλέω δ4. 

ἀπείραστος with Gen. 170. 

ἀπεκρίθη, ἀπεκρίνατο 51. 

ἀπεκατεστάθην augment 35. 

ἀπεκτάνθην 41. 

ἀπέναντι 319 

ἀπέχει impersonal use of 135; ἀπέχειν 
intrans. 144; ἀπέχειν Perf. force of 
Pres. 203. 

ἀπό elided 10; ἀπὸ ἄνωθεν, μακρόθεν, etc. 
70; uses of 821 56. ; in specifns. of 
space and time 153; before Gen. of 
separation 157 sq.; with words of 
plenty 163 ; of hearing etc. 166; af- 
ter Passives 187; and Middles 192; 
before adverbs 320; for Gen. alone 
or instead of an Acc. 323; for ἐκ 
324; with é« in specifications of 
origin 324 ; for παρά 324 ; after μαν- 
Odvew 324; for ὑπό 325; for Dat. 
after Pass. 325; ἀπὸ προσώπου 323, 
824; ἀφ᾽ ἧς and ἀφ᾽ ov of time 82, 
105. 

ἀπογενέσθαι with Dat. 178. 

ἀποδεκτός With Dat. 190. 

ἀποθνήσκειν with Acc. 149; with Dat. 178; 
of ἀποθνήσκοντες 206. 

ἀποκαλύπτειν 146. 

ἀποκρύπτειν constr. of 149; in Pass. 189, 

ἀποκτείναι ἐν θανάτῳ 184. 

ἀποκτέννω, ἀποκταίνω 6]. 

ἀποκύω, ἀποκυέω 62. 

ἀπόλλυμι 64 ; οἱ ἀπολλύμενοι 206. 


INDEX. 41h 


*AmoAAds inflection 21 

ἀπολογεῖσθαί τινι 172. 

ἀπορρίπτειν 145. 

ἀποστέλλειν 146; ἐν 329. 

ἀποστρέφεσθαι 192. 

ἀποτάξασθαί τινι 179. 

ἀποφεύγειν constr. of 158. 

ἄπταιστος 42 

ἅπτεσθαι constr. of 167. 

᾿Απφία 8. 

dpa in questions 247 ; interchanged with 
ἄρα 247, 371; ἄρα οὖ» 371; ἄραγε 
571. 

ἄραφος, ἄρραφος 32. 

ἀργός Fem. ἀργή 25. 

ἀργύρια, τά 34. 

ἄρεσκεία 12. 

ἄρεστός with Dat. 190. 

᾿Αρέτας 20. 

ἀριθμόν used adv. 153. 

ἀρκεῖν ἵνα 240. 

ἀρκετὸν εἶναι ἵνα 240; with Infin. 262. 

ἁρμόσασθαι 198. 

ἀρνέομαι as Dep. Mid. 51. 

ἀρξάμενος ἀπό as a fixed formula 79; 
ἀρξάμενος 374. 

ἁρπάζειν 54. 

ἄρρην and ἄρσην 7; Acc. -αν 18. 

᾿Αρτεμᾶς 30. 

ἀρτέμων 24. 

ἄρχειν constr of 169. 

ἀρχήν used ady. 153. 

-dpxns, -apxés 73. 

-as Prop. names in 17, 19. 

-as Gen. ἃ 20. 

ἀσαίνομαι 1 263. 

ἄσπιλος 1ὅ8. 

ἀσφαλῆν -ἦν -ἢ 14. 

ἀσφαλισθῆναι 52. 

ἄτερ 320. 

αὐθεντεῖν 169. 

αὐλίζομαι with Aor. Pass. 51. 

αὐξάνω, αὔξω 54, 145; αὔξησιν 148; in 
Pass. 189. 

αὔρα omission of 82. 

αὐτός constr. ad syn. with 105 sq.; loose 
reference 106; for unemphatic he 
107 sq; in the Sept. 108sq.; for 
Christ 108; αὐτή or αὕτη 109; αὐτό 
and τοῦτο 109; αὐτοί 109; αὐτὸ τοῦτο, 
τοῦτο αὐτὸ 109 sq., 280; αὐτοὶ οὗτοι 
110; use of Art. with 119; Gen. of 
no longer used with Adj. Prons. 
117; excessive use of 107, 118, 
142 sq., 306, 315, 380; 6 αὐτός with 
Dat. 177 ; supposed resumptive use 
of with Infin. 279; in relative sen- 
tences 280, 283; after a Part. 143, 
806 ; ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό 338. 

αὐτοῦ, αὑτοῦ, ἑαυτοῦ [11] sq.; used for the 
reflex. of the Ist or 2d Pers. 113; 
position of in reference to the Art. 





116. 


416 GREEK 

ἀφαιρεῖν, -σθαι, constr. of 149, 158; in 
Pass. 189. 

ἀφανίζειν sc. χρήματα 146. 

ἀφεῖς 49, 


ἀφέωνται, ἀφίενται 49. 

ἄφες with Subjunctive 210. 

ἀφελπίζω 7. 

ἀφίδω 7. 

ἀφιέναι ἵνα 238; ἀφιέ; χι with Infin. 258 ; 
with Part. 304 ; ‘nm the sense of per- 
mit 210,258; leave 304. 

᾿ἀφίονται 49. 

ἀφορίζω Fut. of 37. 

ἄχρις and ἄχρι 10; moods with 231. 

-dw changed into -éw 44. 


Βάαλ, ὁ, 21. 

βαθέως 26. 

βαίνειν 54. 

βάλλειν Aor. Pass. in reflex. sense 52; 
intrans. 145; εἰς τ. καρδ. ἵν α 238. 

βάπτειν with Gen. 170. 

βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι and ὕδατι, etc. 182. 

βαπτισθῆναι βάπτισμα 148. 

Βαραχίας 17. 

Βαρνάβας 20. 

Βαρραβᾶς 20. 

Βαρσαβᾶς 20. 

βαρέω, βαρύνω 54. 

βασκαίνειν 41. 

βασιλεύειν constr. of 169. 

βασίλισσα 73. 

βάτος, ἡ 12. 

βέβαιος 25. 

BeeA(eBova spelling 6. 

Βελίαρ 6, 

Βηθανία 17. 

Βηθλεέμ, 7 21. 

Βηθσαϊδά 17. 

Βηθφαγῇ -γή 15. 

βιάζεσθαι 58. 

βιόω 54. 

βλαστᾷ 55. 

βλαστάνειν 55. 

βλασφημεῖν 146. 

βλέπειν i.g. φυλάσσεσθαι constr. of 242sq., 
323; with Part. 301. 

βότρυς Acc. Plur’ -as 14. 

βούλομαι augment 33; βούλει 42; with 
the Subj. 208; ἐβουλόμην without 
ἄν 217. 

βοῦς, βόας 14. 

βραδύς foll. by Infin. etc. 265, 269. 


Γάζα 17. 

γάμοι, οἱ 23. 

γαμέω 55, 145, 177. 

γάρ interrog. and ellipt ase of 370. . 
γεγονώς 1.4. natus 55. 

Γεδεών inflection 15. 

γέεννα 17. 

Γεθσημανῆ -νεῖ -vet 15. 

γελάσω 53. 





INDEX. 


γέμειν constr. of 163, 164. 

vyeuiCe constr. of 163. 

γεύεσθαι constr. of 167. 

γῆ omission of 82; anarthrous use of 89 

γῆρας Dat. -εἰ 15. 

γίνομαι 55; Aor. Pass. and Mid. 52; καὶ 
ἐγένετο and ἐγένετο δέ 135, 276, ef. 
312; ellipsis of 138; εἴς τι 150, 333 ; 
with Gen. 162sq.; Fut. force of 
Pres. 204 ; μὴ γένοιτο 248 ; ἐγέν. foll. 
by Infin. and τοῦ 270, foll. by an 
Infin. and finite verb 276 sq., or by 
Acc. and Infin. 277; with Part. in 
periphrasis 308 sq. ; followed by ἐν 
330; ὑπό 340 sq. 

γινώσκω 55; Pass. with Dat. 187; with 
Part. 301. 

γλῶσσα spelling 7. 

γνοῖ Aor. Subjunctive 46. 

γνώμη omission of 82. 

γνωρίζω Fut. of 37. 

γνωστός with Dat. 190. 

Γόμορρα inflection 18. 

γονυπετεῖν constr. of 148. 

γράφω, ἔγραψα in letters 198; γραφ. ἵνα 
or ὅτι 237. 

γυνή without the Art. 89; omission of 
94, 


Δαμασκός 18. 

Δαυείδ spelling 6. 

δέ 363; in the apodosis 364; often added 
by the copyists 363 sq., 403; wal... 
5é 364; μὲν... δέ 364sq.; omitted 
365. 

δεῖ 135, 147, 164, 259; to be supplied 
272; not to be supplied 273; ἔδει 
without ἄν 216, 225 sq. 

δέομαι 55; constr. of 164; ἵνα 237; with 
εἰ 256; with Infin. 258, and eis 
265, 273. 

δείκνυμι forms of 45. 

δέρειν πολλάς sc. πληγάς 148; in Pass. 
189. 

δέσμιος ᾿Ιησοῦ 169. 

δεσμός forms of Plur. 23. 

δεῦρο, δεῦτε 70. 

Δημᾶς 90. 

δηναρίου Gen. of price 164. 

διά elided 10; with Gen. of Pers. 182: 
in modal periphrasis 183; after Pas- 
sives 187; with Infin. 263 ; generaj 
use of 334 ; in adverbial phrases 334. 

διάβολος anarthrous 89. 

διάγειν intrans. 144. 

διακατελέγχεσθαι 177. 

διακονέω augment 35; Pass. 188. 

διάκονοι Omission of 82. 

διακρίνεσθαι constr. of 177; διακριθῆναι 
intrans. 52. 

διαλέγεσθαι constr. of 177. 

διαλείπω (ov) followed by a Part. 300. 

διαμαρτυρεῖσθαι ἵνα 237. 


GREEK INDEX. 


διαστέλλεσθαι ἵνα 237. 

διατάσσειν and -εσθαι 198. 

διατελεῖν with complement. clause 604. 

διατίθεσθαι διαθήκην 148. ’ 

διατρίβειν 145. 

διδάσκειν constr. of 149; διδασκαλίας 148 ; 
in Pass. 188. 

διδοῖ 46. 

δίδωμι forms of 45 sq., 47; in sense of 
acquire 1 133 ; δ. δόματα 148 ; constr. 
with Gen 159; Aor. and Perf. in- 
terchanged 199; ἵνα 238; followed 
by interrog. clause 251; followed by 
Infin. 258, 260, 261, with eis 265; 
ἐν 329. 

διερμήνευεν 34. 

δικαιοῦσθαι ἀπό 322. 

διό, διόπερ 238. 

διορύσσειν sc. τεῖχος 146. 

διότι 283. 

διπλοῦς, -πλός, -πλότερος 27. 

διψάω contraction 44; with Acc. 147. 

διώκειν ἵνα 237 ; διώξω 53. 

δοῖ 46. 

δοκῶ μοι, ἐμαυτῷ 111. 

δόξα θεοῦ anarthrous 89. 

δύναμαι augment 33; forms, etc. 55; 
ἐδυνάμην without ἄν 216. 

δύνασαι, δύνῃ 55. 

δυνατός with Dat.190; δυνατός εἰμι with 
Infin. 260. 

δύο inflection 28; δύο δύο 30. 

δύω 56. 

δῷ 46. 

δώῃ (δῴη, δῴῃ) 46, 233. ' 

δῴην 46. 

δώσῃ 36. 


e initial in compos. changed into ἡ 74. 

ε interchanged with a 5, 40 note. 

-e Voc. in 12. 

ἔα 72. 

ἐάν, ἤν, ἄν 72; ἐάν for ἄν 72; with Sub- 
junc. 220; with Indic. 221, 222; 
negatives after 345; in asseveration 
858; iq. ὃς ἄν 360; transposition 
in clauses with 389. 

ἐάντε... ἐάντε 221 note. 

ἑαυτόν ellipsis of 144 ; with Acc. and Inf. 
contrary to rule 274. 

ἑαυτοῦ, etc., not αὑτοῦ, etc., 111; posi- 
tion of 116; ἑαυτοῖς, etc., for reflex. 
of 1st and 2d. Pers. 113. 

ἐβάσκανεν 41. 

éydunoa, ἔγημα 55. 

ἐγγίζω Fut. of 37. 

ἐγγύς, ἐγγύτερον as Pred. 131 ; with Gen. 
or Dat. 170. 

ἐγείρω, Aor. Pass. in reflex. sense 52 ; 
intrans. ἔγειραι, ἔγειρε 56; ἐγείρεται 
(Fut.) 204. 

ἐγκαίνια, τά 23. 

ἐγκαλεῖν constr. of 177; in Pass. 188. 

53 





417 


ἐγκανᾶ 9. 

ἐγκαλεῖσθαι στάσεως 177. 

ἐγχρίειν constr. of 149 sq. 

ἐγώ, etc., N. T. use of with verbs 131 sq 

ἐδαφίζω Fut. of 37. 

ἐδολιοῦσαν 43. 

ἐδέετο, ἐδεεῖτο 55. 

ἐδίδοτο -ετο 47. 

ἔδομαι, φάγομαι 58. 

ἔδοτο -ετο 47. 

ἔδυν 56. 

’"ECexias 17. 

ἐθέλω, θέλω 57. 

ἔθνη as Νίαβο. 130. 

ἐθύθη, ἐτύθη 7. 

et fort 5. 

εἰ augment 34. 

εἰ without an apodosis 215; with Indic. 
220; with Subj. 221; with Optat. 
223 sq.; with the Pret. 224; witk 
Pres. for Pret. 224; for ὅτι after 
θαυμάζω etc. 246, cf. 215; redun- 
dant 248, 249; in questions 250; 
negatives after 345sq.; in oaths 
358; εἰ καί, εἴ πως, εἰ ἄρα followed 
by Subj. and Opt. (¢fperchance) 256; 
εἰ οὐ 345; εἰ μή nisi 345, 348, 359 ; 
εἰ δὲ μή, εἰ δὲ μή γε 345, 393 ; 
εἰ μήν 359; εἰ μήτι 219, 221, 359; 
ἐκτὸς εἰ μή 359. 

τεια, abstracts in 12. 

εἶδαν, εἶδον, ἴδον, ἴδα 39. 

εἰδέα 5. 

εἰδέναι never with Part. 301. 

εἶδον καὶ ἰδού 139. 

εἰκῆ, εἰκῇ 69. 

εἰκόναν 18. 

εἴκοσι and εἴκοσιν 9. 

εἱλάμην 40. 

εἷλισσόμενος 34. 

εἶμι only in composition 50. 

εἰμί forms 49 sq.; 6 ὧν καὶ 6 ἦν 50; eilip- 
sis of in 3d Sing. 136; in 3d Phur. 
137; in Ist and 2d Pers. 187: 
in Subjunc. Optat. Imperat. 137; 
of Indic. in doxologies 137; εἴς τι 
150; with Gen. 159, 162sq.; Kal 
ἔσται followed by Fut. 278; Part. 
omitted 304, 308; with Part. in 

riphrasis 308sq.; ἔσομαι with 

Pert Part. 811 ; ἦν, ἦσαν with Part. 
like ἐγένετο δέ, etc. 312; ἦν, ἦσαν 
with Pres. Part. in Mark and Luke 
312; with ἐν 330. 

εἵνεκεν 10; with Inf. 266. 

εἰπεῖν 57 ; εἰπόν accent 57 ; ἵνα 237 note; 
with Infin. 275; εἶπεν omitted 394. 

εἴρηκεν used absolutely 134. 

-εἷς Acc. Plur. from -εὖς 14. 

eis with Infin. 264 ef. 244, 259; in 
brachylog. and pregn. constr.327sq.; 
with verks of rest 328, 329sq.; in- 
terchange ! with ἐν 333 ; with εἶναι, 


418 GREEK 


γίνεσθαι, 150, 333; and Acc. after 
verbs signifying to appoint etc. 150; 
in circumlocution for Dative 172; 
in adverbial phrases 334. 

eis τριάκοντα etc. 30. 

εἷς for πρῶτος 29; for τὶς 85; εἷς Tus 85; 
in the sense of alter, ὃ ἕτερος, 30, 102; 
for the reciprocal Pron. 31; He- 
braistic ? use of 102; eis... ov (μή) 
121; ἕως ἑνός 121. 

εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς 28, 30. 

τεισαν in 3d Plur. Pluperf. 48. 

εἴτε... εἴτε with Subjunc. 221, in ques- 
tions 250. 

εἶχαν 40. 

ἐκ use of 326; in periphrasis 156; in- 
stead of simple Gen. 157 ; with Gen. 
of separation 157; with part. Gen. 
156, 158; with words of plenty etc. 
163; of buying etc. 164; of hearing 
166; after Passives 187, 327; and 
ἀπό 326 sq.; after Neuter verbs 
327; in adverbial expressions 327 ; 
in brachylogical phrases 327; in 
phrases with the Art. 95; denoting 
origin ete. 324, 

ἐκαθεζόμην, ἐκαθήμην 56. 

ἕκαστος use of Art. with 120; εἷς ἕκαστος 
120; ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος 30; with Plur. 
verb 131. 

ἑκατονταετής accent 29. 

ἑκατοντάρχης, ἑκατόνταρχος 73. 

ἐκδικεῖν τι ἔκ τινος 182, 

ἐκδόσεται 47. 

ἐκεῖ 71, 378. 

ἐκεῖνος and οὗτος 104; use of Art. with 
119 54. ; resumptive of Part. 306. 

ἐκεῖσε 71, 378. 

ἐκκαθάρῃ 41. 

ἐκκλίνειν 145. 

ἔκπαλαι 321. 

ἐκτὸς εἰ μή except 221, 345, 355, 359. 

ἐκτρέπεσθαι 192. 

ἐκφεύγειν constr. of 146 sq. 

ἐκφυῇ, ἐκφύῃ 68. 

ἐκχέετε 44. 

ἐκχεῶ, ἐκχέω 68. 

᾿Ἐλαιών, τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν, etc., 22, cf. 
151. 

ἐλάσσων and ἐλάττων 7; neut. indeclin- 
able 127 sq. 

ἐλαττόω spelling 7. 

ἐλαχιστότερος 28. 

ἐλεέω, ἐλεάω 57. 

ἔλεος, τό 22. 

ἐλευθεροῦν constr. of 158. 

ἐλθεῖν to be supplied 138. 

ἑλκόω augment 34, 

ἐλλόγα, -aTo etc. 58, 

ἐλπίζω Fut. of 37; constructions of 175, 
337; with Infin. especially Aor. 
259; with ὅτι and Fut. Ind. 259; 
ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι 337. 





INDEX. 


ἑλπις 7. 

*EAduas 20. 

ἑλῷ 53. 

ἐμαυτοῦ etcs use of 110 sq. 

ἐμβριμάομαι Aor. of 52. 

ἐμμέσῳ 8864. ; ἐν μέσῳ anaithrous 89; 
with Gen. following 94. 

ἐμός : τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου 117. 

ἐμοῦ for μου 117. 

ἐμπαίξουσιν 64. 

ἐμπιπλῶν 66. 

ἐμπνέων with Gen. 167. 

ἐμπορεύεσθαι with Acc. 147. 

ἔμπροσθεν 172, 176, 319. 

ἐμφανίζω Fut. of 37. 

ἐν unassimilated in comp. 8. : 

év in periphrasis of Gen. 156, 158; with 
Dat. inst. 181, 182, 829, cf. 264; not 
a mere sign of Dat. 181; in modal 
periphrasis 183 ; with Infin. 26? eq ; 
with verbs of motion 328; for διὰ 
with persons 329; with εἶναι, γίνεσ- 
θαι 339; with ἔχειν 330; in adver- 
bial phrases 330; ἐν rots 374; ἐν ᾧ 
105, 331; ἐν κυρίῳ Χριστῷ ete. 174, 
175, 185, 330; ἐν Ἡλίᾳ 331; ἐν and 
eis interchanged 333. 

ἔναντι, ἐναντίον 173, 180, 319. 

ἐνδείκνυσθαι 192. 

ἐνδιδύσκω 56; ἐνδιδύσκεσθαι constr. of 
9] 

ἐνδύεσθαι constr. of 191; ἐνδύεσθαι ἔνδυμα 
148, 191. 

ἕνεκα, ἕνεκεν, εἵνεκεν 10; followed by 
Infin. 266. 

ἐνεργεῖν and -εἶσθαι 193. 

évéxew 144; -εσθαι 161. 

ἐνθάδε 71. 

ἔνι for ἔνεστι 72. 

ἐνισχύειν 145. 

ἔννομος with Gen. 169. 

ἐνορκίζειν constr. of 147. 

ἔνοχος constr. of 170. 

ἐντέλλεσθαι, ἐντολὰς διδόναι, ἵνα 287; 
Infin. after 273, 275. 

ἐντραπήσονται verebuntur 52. 

ἐντρέπεσθαί τινα 192. 

ἐνώπιον and κατενώπιον 172, 176,180,188, 
319. 

ἑόρακα 64. 

ἐξαγοράζεσθαι 192. 

ἐξαυτῆς 82. 

ἐξεκρέμετο 61. 

ἔξεστιν constr. with 278; ἐξόν use of 
318. 

ἐξήραμμαι 41. 


ἡ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι 176. 


ἐξορκίζειν constr. of 147 ; ἵνα 287. 

ἐξ οὗ since 105. 

ἐξουδενέω -dw 28. 

ἐξονθενέω -dw 28. ; 

ἐξε σία with Infin. 260 ; ἔχειν with Infin 
260. 


GREEK 


ἐπαινέσω 53. 
ἐπαισχύνθη 34; ἐπαισχύνεσθαι const:. of 
192. 
ἐπανάγειν intrans. 144. 
ἐπάναγκες 27. 
ἐπάνω in the sense of πλέον 168, 319. 
*Erappas 20. 
ἐπεί 233 ; i.g. for otherwise 359. 
ἐπειδή 233. 
ἔπειτα after a Part. 306; without δέ 365. 
ἔπεσα, ἔπεσαν, ἔπεσον 39. 
ἐπέχειν 144. 
ἐπί with verbs of accusing 165 ; ἐφ᾽ ὃ i.q. 
ἐπὶ τί 253 ; before adverbs 321; with 
Gen. of place 336 ; of time 336 ; in 
adverb. phrases 336; with Dative 
336 sq.; with words of rest and of 
motion 337; in braehylogical phrases 
337; with Accusative 337; with 
idea of rest 338; additive 338; ém 
τὸ αὐτό and other adverbial phrases 
338. 
ἐπιβάλλειν 145; ἐπιβαλών 145. 
ἐπιβλέπω : its use in Mid. and Imperat. 
273. 
ἐπιθυμεῖν κατά τινος 335; ἐπιθυμίᾳ 184. 
ἐπικαλεῖν with Dat. 151 note. 
ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι constr. of 160, 192. 
ἐπιλελησμένον ἐστίν in Pass. sense 52. 
ἐπιμένω (with Participle) expressing con- 
tinuance 300. 
ἐπιορκήσω 53. 
ἐπιούσιος 73 sq. 
ἐπίστασθαι with Part. 301. 
ἐπίστασις meaning of 180. 
ἐπίστηθι 47. 
ἐπιστρέφειν 145. 
ἐπιφᾶναι 41. 
ἐπιφώσκω 68. 
ἐπουράνιος 25. 
ἐραυνάω, épevydw 58. 
ἐργάζομαι augment 33. 
ἔρημος Fem. 25. 
ἐρημοῦται Fut.? 88, 
ἐρίζω Fut. of 37. 
ἡδέα 12; ἐριθεῖαι Plur. 77. 
pts, ἔριδες, ἔρεις 24. 
Ἑρμᾶς 20. 
ἐρρέθην, ἐρρήθην 57. 
ἔρχομαι 58; Fut. force of 304, 255; used 
for εἶμι 50; 6 ἐρχόμενος of the Mes- 
siah 204, 206; τὰ ἐρχόμενα etc. 204 ; 
ἐλθεῖν ἐν 329. 
ἐρωτάω contraction 44; ἵνα 237; wit 
Infin. 258; and eis 265; followel 
by direct discourse 272, cf. δεῖσθαι 
-es for -as in Perf. 2d Sing. 43. 
ἐσθίω, ἔσθω 58; with Gen. 159. 
ἐστάθην, ἔστην 47, 52. 
ἕστακα 48. 
ἑστάναι 48. 
ἔστησα intransitively ? 47. 
ἑστώς, ἑστός, ἑστηκός 48. 


INDEX. 419 


ἔσχατος in Neut. with Gen. following 94; 
use of with ἡμέρα 94. 

ἔσω not εἴσω 72; in the relation of res: 
378; ἐσώτερος 28. 

ἕτερος followed by Part. with Art. 93; 
superfluous 373, cf. ἄλλος. 

ἑτοιμάζειν sc. κατάλυμα 146; ἵνα 237. 

érepo(vyeiv τινί 177. 

ἕτοιμος 25; foll. by Infin. etc. 260, 269. 

ἔτος Gen. Plur. -ῶν 14; accent of com- 
pounds of 29. 

ev augment of verbs beginning with 34. 

Eva 17. 

εὐαγγελίζω augment 35 ; use of Act. 148; 
constr. of 148, 150; Pass. 188. 

εὐαρεστέω augment 35; constr. of 185, 
Pass. 188. 

evdoxéw augment of 34; constr. of 185; 
εὐδόκησα in quotns. 203; εὐδόκησεν 
sc. 6 θεός 134. 

εὐθυδρομέω augment 34. 

εὐκαιρίαν ζητεῖν iva 237. 

εὐνουχίζω augment 34. 

εὐλαβεῖσθαι constr. of 241 sq. 

εὐλογητὸς 6 θεός etc. 137. 

εὐπορέω augment 84. 

εὐρακύλων 16. 

εὑρήσῃς etc. 36. 

εὑρίσκω 58; augment of 34; Act. and 
Mid. 193; with Part. 1.ᾳ. εἶναι 301 ; 
with Part. omitted 304; εὑρεθῆναί 
τινι 187. 

εὗρον, εὗραν 40. 

-evs contracts in 14. 

εὐχαριστεῖν constr. of 300. 

εὔχομαι augment 34; constr. of 177,237; 
ηὐχόμην without ἄν 217. 

ἔφανα 41. 

ἐφάπαξ 321. 

ἔφιδε, ἔπιδε 7. 

ἔχειν intrans. 144; καλῶς, ἐσχάτως,144: 
κατά τίνος 144; ἐν γαστρί 144; κα- 
τὰ κεφαλῆς 146; -εσθαι with Gen. 
161 ; Aor. Mid. 191; signif. of Mid. 
192; οὐκ ex. foll. by Rel. clause 
229; οὐκ ἐχ. τί for 8 251, 229 sq.; 
followed by Infin. 251 ; with ἐν 330; 
signifying to hold for etc. 376. 

ἐχέθην, ἐχύθην 69. 

ἐχθές not χθές 72. 

-éw giving place to -dw 57, 63 cf. 44. 

-éws Gen. in 14, 26. 

ἕως, ἕως ov, etc., constr. of 230sq. 319; 
ἄν with Fut. 231; with Infin. 266 ; 
as Prep. 319; before adverbs 320; 
transposition in clauses with 389. 


¢ used for o before μ 5. 

Ζακχαῖος 18. 

Zaxapias 18. 

(dw forms and signif. 58sq.; constr. of 





149, 178; Infin. as a subst. 262. 
Κγλος gender of 23. 


420 GREEK 


(nrodv ἵνα 237. 

Ζηνᾶς 20. 

(nreiv ἵνα 237, 240; with Infin. 258 cf. 
279 sq. 

(wh αἰώνιος use of Art. with 90. 

ζῶον construed as Mase. 130. 


ἡ used for: 5. 

-n proper names in 17. 

# omitted after πλέον etc. 168; in ques- 
tions 249; ἢ ov 360; giving com- 
parative force 360. 

ἡγεμονεύειν constr. of 169. 

ἡγέομαι 59; constr. of 169. 

ἤδεισαν 51. 

ἥκω 59; Perf. force of Pres. 203. 

ἦλθα, ἦλθαν, ἦλθον 39. 

Ἠλίας 18. 

ἡλίκος in exclamation 253. 

ἥλιος anarthrous 89. 

ἡμέρα Omission of 81 ; in adverbial speci- 
fications 139. 

ἥμισυς forms of 14. 

ἡμῶν for possessive 116; position of 116. 

ἠνεῴχθησαν 35. 

ἥξῃ 36. 

ἤρεμος 28. 

ἠρώτουν 44. 

-ns proper names in 17, 
«ἢ 20. 

*Hoalas 17. 

ἡττάομαι 59; constr. of 168. 

ἥττημα 7. 

ἤφιεν 49. 

ἦχος gender of 23. 


, 19; -ἢς Gen. 


θάλασσα spelling 7 ; anarthrous use of 89. 

θάλλω 59. 

θάνατος anarthrous use of 89; θανάτῳ 
τελευτᾷν 184. 

θαρρέω and θαρσέω 7. 

θαυμάζω 59; θαῦμα 148; constr. of 185, 
264, 

θεαθῆναι 52. 

θέλω 57; with Subjunc. 208 cf. 240; with 
εἰ 215, 246; ἵνα 237, 240; in the 
sense of malle 360; never equiv. to 
adverb 375; θέλων used absolutely 
i.q. purposely 376; θέλειν ἔν τινι 376. 

-Gev, -θε particles of place in 70. 

θεός Voc. 12, 140; anarthrous use of 89; 
ellipsis of as Subj. 134; as alimiting 
Dat. 179 sq. 

θερίζω Fut. of 37. 

θεωρεῖτε Fut. ? 38; with Part, 201. 

@evdas 20. 

θηρίον construed as Mase. 80. 

θθ for τθ 8. 

θνήσκω 60. 

θριαμβεύειν constr. of 147. 

Ουάτειρα inflection of 18. 

θυμοί Plur. 77. 

θύραι, αἱ 34. 





INDEX. 


θύω, ἐθύθη 7. 


ι represented in Mss. by εἰ or by 7 5; 
subscr. omitted in Infin. 44, in ad- 
verbs 69; -i as an adverbial ending 
73. 

Ἰάειρος 18. 

Ἰακώβ and Ἰάκωβος 6, 18. 

ἸἸαμβρῆς 20. 

Ἰαννῆς 20. 

ἴαται, ἰαθήσεται 52. 

ἴδα, ἴδον 39. 

ἴδε and ἰδού ecce 62, 70; with a Nom. 
139; in place of ἦν 312; repeated 
398; εἶδον καὶ ἰδού 139; καὶ ἰδού 
before the apodosis 362. 

ἰδέα spelling 5. 

ἴδιος use of for ἑαυτοῦ etc. 117; of ἴδ., 
τὰ ἴδ. used substantively 118; in 
strict sense 118; a favorite word in 
2 Pet. 118; omission of Art. with 
119. 

ἰδού see ἴδε. : 

Ἱερᾷ πόλει not Ἱεραπόλει 74. 

Ἱερεμίας 17. 

Ἱεριχώ 15. 

Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἣ, Ἱεροσόλυμα, τὰ ,16,18, 21, 

*lexovias 18. 

-((m Fut. of verbs in 36. 

ἴημι Aor. of 46; forms of 48. Α 

Ἰησοῦς 21. 

ἱκανὸν εἶναι ἵνα 240; foll. by Infin. 260. 

ixvéoua 60. 

ἱμάτια, τά 24; ellipsis of 82. 

ἵνα in final sentences 229, 233, 377 ; force 
of in N.T. 235sq. ; with Indic. Fut. 
and Pres. 234; with Imperat. 234; 
classes of preds. which it follows 
237 sq.; nearly equiv. to ὥστε 238 cf. 
264; omission of (2) 238, 243; in- 
terchanged with the Infin. (with ana 
without τοῦ) 238, 240, 264, 267 sq. ; 
may be translated that, even so that 
239 ; in elliptical constructions 241 ; 
for Fut. Part. of purpose 241; for 
the Imperat. 241; ἵνα μή ne dicam 
241 ἵνα τί 357; attraction with 377; 
transposition in clauses with 389. 

Ἰορδάνης 17, 21. 

Ἰούδα: 20. 

*Iovvlas 18. 

ἵουσιν 48. 

-ἰς Gen. -ews, contracts in 14. 

ἴσα as predicate 131. 

ἵστημι, ἱστάνω οἵα. forms of 4454., 47; 
and στῆσαι with ἐν 329; στῆναι with 
eis 332; with ἐπί 336. 

ἰχθύς uncontracted 14. 

Ἰωάννα 17. 

Ἰωάννης, ᾿Ιωάνης 17. 

᾿ἸΙωνᾶς 20. 

Ἰωσῆς 19, 20. . 

Ἰωσίας 18. 


GREEK 


κἀγώ and καὶ ἐγώ 10, , 

καθαιρεῖσθαι, καθελεῖν, constr. of 158 note. 

καθαρός constr. of 158. 

καθέζομαι 56, 60. 

καθελεῖν constr. of 158 note. 

Ka Papt(w( «adept (w)forms of 29; Fut. of 37. 

κάθῃ, κάθου 49. 

καθῆκεν 217 

κάθημαι 60. 

καθίζω 60; Fut. of 87; without subject 
expressed 134; with eis 832; with 
ἐπί 338. 

καθιστάναι constr. of 150. 

καί uses of 360sqq.; adjuncts with in 
Nom. 141; after a Rel. 283, cf. 362; 
connecting Participles 297; κἄν if 
only 360; τε καί 360; καί τε 361; 
instead of temporal and other sub- 
ordinate clauses 361; connecting 
adjs. not co-ordinate (πολύς etc.) 
362; for οὕτως 362; in the apodosis 
362, 373 ; καὶ ἰδού 362; i.g. as 363; 
strengthening comparatives 363 ; ep- 
exegetic 363, cf. 400; καὶ δέ 364; in 
continuation of a neg. 368; ap- 
parently omitted 369; after nega- 
tives 368; καὶ οὐ, καὶ μή 368. 

Καϊάφας, Καΐφας 20. 

καίπερ with Part. 308. 

καιρὸν ἔχειν foll. by Infin. 260. 

Καῖσαρ -os 16. ; 

καίτοι with Part. 808. 

καίω, κατακαίω 60. 

κακεῖ and καὶ ἐκεῖ 10. 

κακός comparison 27. 

καλεῖν constr. 151; 6 καλούμενος 804. 

καλὸν ἦν 217. 

καμμῦσαι, καμμύσαι 62. 

καμμύω for καταμύω 62. 

κἀμοί and καὶ ἐμοί 10. 

κάμπτειν γόνατα ἵνα 237 

κἄν and καὶ ἐάν 10; used elliptically 360. 

Kava, 7 21. 

Κάρμηλος, 6 and ἡ, Χέρμελ, 6 22. 

κατὰ use οἵ 3348q.; distributive 30 ; with 
the Greek Acc. 152; with Acc. in 
periphrasis 156, 162; in superscrns. 
of Gospels 157 ; to express a quality 
162; with verbs of accusing 165; 
in periphrases of manner 183; with 
local Gen. signifying throughout 334 ; 
use with Gen. as an Adj. 335. 

καταβαίνων and -Bas ἄρτος 297. 

καταγελᾷν constr. of 165, 167. 

καταγινώσκειν 165. 

καταδικάζειν constr. of 165. 

καταδυναστεύειν with Gen. 169. 

κατακαυχᾶσαι 42; constr. of 185. 

κατακρίνειν constr. of 165. 

καταλαλιαί Plur. 77. 

καταλύειν intrans. 145, 

καταμαρτυρεῖν constr. of 165 ; with Gen. 
178. 





κατάπκστος 65. 

καταρᾶσθαι constr. of 177. 

καταρτίζω Fut. of 37. 

καταφρονεῖν constr. of 165. 

κατεαγῶσιν, κατεάξει 53. 

κατέναντι 319. 

κατενύγην 63. 

κατενώπιον 173, 819, cf. ἐνώπιον. 

κατηγορεῖν constr. of 165; Pass. 188. 

κατήγωρ 25. 

καυματίζεσθαι καῦμα 148. 

καυσούμενα, καυσόω θ0. 

καυχᾶσαι 42; καυχᾶσθαι construction of 
105 ; τινί 172; ἐνώπιον 173. 

Κεδρών, ὃ 21. 

κεῖμαι as Perf. Pass. of τίθημι 50. 

κείρειν 193; κείρεσθαι with Acc. 192. 

κεκαθερισμένος 29. 

κεκοπίακες 43. 

κεκραμένος 60. 

κελεύω, ἐκέλευον use of 201; never with 
ἵνα 237 note; with Infin. Pass. 275. 

κεράννυμι 60. 

κέρας uncontracted 15. 

κερδαίνω 60. 

κῆρυξ accent 13. 

κηρύσσειν iva 237, 275; with Infin. 273, 
275. 

Κηφᾶς 20. 

Κίς spelling 6. 

κλαίω 60; constr. of 147. 

κλεῖς inflection 24. 

κλέπτειν sc. χρήματα 146; κλέψω 53. 

Κλεόπας 20, 

Κλήμης 17. 

κληρονομεῖν constr. of 160. 

KAlve 145. 

κλοπαί Plur. 77. 

Κλωπᾶς 20. 

κοδράντης 17. 

κοινωνεῖν constr. of 160. 

κοινωνία constr. of 160. 

κοινωνός constr. of 160. 

κόλποι, οἱ 24, 

κομίζομαι Fut. of 37; Aor. Mid. 19ὲ. 

κορβανᾶς 20. 

κορέννυσθαι constr. of 167. 

κόσμος anarthrous 89. 

κουστωδία 17. 

κράζω 61; κρᾶζον accent 61. 

κρατεῖν constructions with 161. 

κρέας Plur. of 15. 


κρείσσων and κρείττων 75 κρεῖττον ἦν 


217. 

κρεμάννυμι 61. 

Κρήσκης 17. 

κριθῆναι meaning 52, 

κρίμα not κρῖμα 73. 

κρίνειν κρίσιν 148. 

τρύπτω, ἔκρυβον 40; constr. of 149; in 
Pass. 188. 

κρυφῆ, κρυφῇ 69. 

κτείνω, κταίνω, κτέννω 61. 


429 GREEK 


κυριεύειν constr. of 169. 
κύριος anarthrous 89. 
κωλύειν constr. of 158. 
K@s inflection 21. 


AdBe or AaBé 62. 

λαγχάνειν constr. of 160, 269. 

λάθρα, λάθρᾳ 69. 

λαλεῖν τινι and μετά τινος 172. 

λαμβάνω Alex. spelling 62 ; τὶ εἴς τι 151 ; 
with Gen. 159; with gerundial In- 
fin. 261; with ἀπό and παρά 324 
and note. 

λανθάνειν with a Participle 299. 

λαός 13 ; with Plural verb 130. 

λάσκω 62. 

λέγειν : λέγει 86. 6 θεός Or | γραφή 134; 
λέγειν καλῶς, κακῶς with Acc. 146; 
τινί and πρός τινα 172; ellipsis of 
271 sq., 352, 394 ; for κελεύειν (Infin. 
after) 273, 276; ἐπί τινος and περί 
Tivos 336. 

λεγιών -εών 16. 

λείπω Aor. of 62. 

Λευΐς (-efs) inflection 21, 

λήμψομαι 62. 

Anvés, 6, 7 12, 81. 

Λίβανος, ὃ 22. 

λιμός, ἡ 12, 81. 

λιμπάνω 62. 

λογισθῆναι 52. 

λογίζομαι εἴς τι 151; ὡς 151. 

λοιπόν adverbially 96, 123 ; τοῦ λοιποῦ 170, 

Δουκᾶς 20. 

Λύδδα inflection 18. 

λυσιτελεῖν satius esse 360. 

Avorpa inflection 19. 


-μα nouns in 73, 

μαθητεύειν constr. of 147. 

Μαθθαῖος 18. 

μακαρίζω Fut. of 37. 

μακράν se. ὅδόν 153. 

μᾶλλον pleonastic (with the Compar.) 83. 

μαμωνᾶς 20. ᾿ 

Μανασσῆς 19. 

μανθάνειν constr. of 167; with Participle 
303 ; with ἀπό and παρά 324. 

μαρανθήσεται wither away 52. 

Μάρθα -as 17. 

Μαριάμ and Μαρία 6, 17. 

μαρτυρεῖν μαρτυρίαν 148 ; with Dat. 178; 
Pass. 188; with eis and Infin. 265. 

Ματθίας 18. 

Ματταθίας 18. 

dxaipa -ns 11. 

decanted with periphrasis for Dat. 177 ; 
μάχην 148. 

μεγαλωσύνη 73. 

μεγιστᾶνες 24. 

μεθύω, μεθύσκομαι 62. 

Μελεᾶς 20. Ξ 

etCétepos 28. 
orc nigra 33; with Infin.esp.Pres.259. 





INDEX 


μέλομαι 62; μέλει μοι constr. of 164. 

μεμβράνα 17. 

μεμίαμμαι 41. 

μεμίανται 3d Plur. 41. 

μεμνηστευμένη 32. 

μέμφεσθαι constr. of 177. 

μέν introduced by the copyists 364 sq. 
variations in 865; without a fol- 
lowing δέ 365; omitted 366 ; μὲν... 
Sé 364; μὲν οὖν 370; μενοῦνγε 3705q.; 
μὲν δή not found 370 note. 

μένειν with Acc. 147. 

Μεριμνᾷν with three cases 186. 

μέσος in Neut. with Gen. following 94; 
μέσον as Prep. 123, 319; ἀνὰ μέσον 
332. 

Μεσσίας 18. 

μετά with Infin. Acc. 265; constructions 
with 338 sq.; used brachylogically 
339. 

μεταδίδωμι constr. of 160. 

μετανοεῖν ἀπό 322 note; ἐκ 327. 

μεταστραφήτω reflexive 52. 

μετασχηματίζω Fut. of 37. 

μετέχειν constr. of 160. 

μετοικίζω Fut. of 37. 

μέχρις and wéxpt 10; Moods with 281. 

μή (μήπως etc.) final 233; after verbs of 

fearing 241 sq., 377; without a verb 

of fearing expressed 353 ; with the 

Indic. 243, 353 ; with a following οὐ 

248, 354. 

interrogative (μήποτε, μήτι) 248; 

whether not, whether not perchance 250, 

255 sq.; μὴ ov 248, 354. 

μή negative with the Infin. 269, 349, 355; 
in conditional sentences 845; in 
relative sentences 348; with parti- 
ciples 350sq.; pleonastic with the 
Infin. 355; cf. ov. 

μηδέ 366 sq.; cf. οὐδέ. 

μηδείς emphatic substitutes for 121 ; 
μηδέν with Mass. or Fem. substs. 
127, 152; μηδὲν σοί elliptically 138. 

μηθείς 28, 

μῆναν 18. 

μήποτε, οὔποτε 354; 1.α. tows 354 note. 

μήτε 366. 

μήτηρ omission of 94. 

μήτις 31. 

-ἴι verbs in 4456. 

μιγνύειν constr. of 177. 

fatpos, μιαρός 29. 

μίλιον 18. 

μνημονεύειν constr. of 164. 

μνησθῆναι 52. 

μοιχεῖαι Plur. 77. 

μόνος and μόνον 83. 

pov etc. used for reflexives 110, 115; for 
possessives 115; position of 343, 344. 

bbw, καμμύω 62. 

Μωυσῆς, Μωῦσῆς, Μωσῆς 19. 


μή 





GREEK 


v ἐφελκυστικόν 9. 

ν paragogic in the Acc. Sing. 18, 

Ναζ(αρέθ spelling of 6. 

ναός 18. 

Νέαν πόλιν ποῦ Νεάπολιν 74. 

νεκροί anarthrous use of 89 and note 2. 

vh 371. 

νῆστις, νήστεις 26. 

νίζω, νίπτω 63. 

νικάω contraction 44; constr. of with ἐκ 
147. 

νίκη, ἡ, and νῖκος, τό 23. 

νίπτω͵ νίπτεσθαι 193. 

νόμος without the Art. 89. 

vovs forms of 12 sq. 

νυκτός etc. 170. 

νῦν δέ after conditional sentences 396. 

vicow, κατανύσσω 63. 


ξενίζεσθαι constr. of 185. 

Enpaivw Perfect Pass. 41; used intrans- 
itively 52. 

Eupéw, Eupdw 63. 


6, n, τό use of 85 54ᾳ.; with τοιοῦτος and 
τοσοῦτος 87; with proper names 
86 sq.; never indefinite 87 sq.; with 
Poss. Prons. 87; the rhetorical 88 ; 
omission of with appellatives 88 sq. ; 
use of with Part. after indefinites 
93; with more closely defined substs. 
90 sqq.; in lieu of a subst. 94; of 
περί twa95; of with following Gen. 
95; with a Gen. or adverbial limitn. 
95; with adv. for adj. 95 ; τὸ before 
sentences etc. 96; with connected 
substs. 98; as a demonstrative 101; 
ὃ μὲν... ὁ δέ and its substitutes 
102; 6 δέ in narration 102; with 
Prons. πᾶς ete. 119 sqq.; with Part. 
as Subst. 123; with Pred. 123 sq.; 
τοῦ with Infin. 266 sqq.; ἐν τοῖς 374. 
Cf. Article. 

ὅδε rare 103. 

650s omission of 82; ὁδὸν θαλάσσης 153; 
τῆς 6500 εἶναι 163; ὁδῷ, ὁδοῖς with 
verbs of going 184. ν᾽ 

ὀδυνᾶσαι 42. 

O¢ias 18. 

ὅθεν in attraction 287 sq. 

οἱ and v interchanged 5. 

οἴγω, ἀνοίγω 63. 

οἶδα forms of 51; questions after 250, 
377; constr. with 301. 

οἰκία with Plur. pred. 130. 

οἰκοδομέω augment 34. 

οἰκτείρω 64. 

οἰκτιρμοί 77. 

-o as Infin. ending for -ody 44. 

ὅλος with Art. 94. 

ὄλλυμι forms of 45, 64. 

᾿Ολνυμπᾶς 20. 

ὁμείρομαι, ἱμείρομαι 64. 





INDEX. 493 


ὁμιλεῖν constr. of 177. 

ὄμνυμι forms of 45; constr. of 147. 

ὅμοιος 26; constr. of 170. 

ὁμοιοῦν ὡς 177. ἶ 

ὁμοιώθημεν 84. 

ὁμολογέω augment 34; ὁμολογίαν 148: 
constr. of 173, 176; with Part. 301. 

ὅμως position of with Part. 308. 

-ov from the Lat. -wm 18. 

ὀνειδίζειν constr. of 177. 

ὄνομα αὐτῷ etc. with omission of copula 
136; for τοὔνομα or ὀνόματι 139; 
pleonastic 151, 398; τοὔνομα 153; 
used absol. 163 note; dvduar:, ἐν 
év., ἐπ᾽ dv. 183, 184, 330, 337. 

ὀπίσω 172, 184, 185, 319. 

ὁπότε, ὁπόταν constr. with 232. 

ὅπου, ὅποι 71; ὅπου ἄν with Indic. 228. 

ὅπως constr. with 214, 233sq.; with ἄν 
234; use of in the N. T. 236. 

ὁράω 64; ὥφθη 52; with Dat. 187; 1.4. 
φυλάσσεσθαι constr. of 242 sq. ; ple- 
onastic Impera. 243; with Part. 301, 
304 ; dpa μή used elliptically 395. 

ὁρκίζειν constr. of 147, 237. 

ὄρος Gen. -éwy 14. 

-os proper names in 18; neuters in 14. 

és Gend. of 281 ; equiv. to καὶ οὗτος 283 ; 
ὃς ἄν for ἐάν 288; ἐξ οὗ, ἀφ᾽ οὗ, ἀφ᾽ 
ἧς etc. 82,105; ὃς μὲν... ὃς δέ 102, 

τοσαν for -ον 43. 

ὁσάκις constr. with 232. 

ὃς δέ for ὁ δέ 102. 

ὅσιος 20. 

ὃς μὲν... ὃς δέ 102. 

ὅσος 373; ὅσον ὕσον 373. 

ὅστις loose use of 115; with Subjunc. 

- and Fut. 219, 228; 8,71 ig. διὰ τί 

253; Gend. of 281. 

ὀστοῦν forms of 13. 

ὅταν with Indic. 222 sq., 230. 

ὅτε with Subjunce. 231. 

ὅτι signification of 357; in declar. sen- 
tences 245, 357; redundant 237,245, 
274; after μιμνήσκεσθαι etc. 246; 
before the Subjunc. and Impera. 237, 
246; passes over into Acc. and 
Infin. 383 ; elliptical τί ὅτι 358; ὡς 
ὅτι 358; equiv. to δῆλον ὅτι 358; 
οὐχ ὅτι 372; attraction with 376. 

8, τι for διὰ τί 253. 

ὅτου, ἕως ὅτου 31. 

ov, οὐκ, οὐχ 7; in direct questions 247 ; 
with Fut. for Imperat. 257 sq. ; in 
conditional sentences 344 sq. ; neg- 
ativing only a part of the sentence 
347,351; in relative sentences 348 sq.; 
in illative, causal, declarative sen- 
tences 349; after ὥστε with Indic. 
849; after ὅτι etc. ἐπεί etc. 349; 
rare with Infin. 349; with Parti- 
ciples 350 ; for antithesis’ sake 352; 
distinguished from μή 351, 352 


494. GREEK 


with substantives 353; pleonastic 
355 ; od μή use and constr. of 211sqq-, 
218, 245 sq.; οὐκοῦν 249; οὖκ ... 
ἀλλά (δέ) negativing relatively 356 ; 
ov μόνον ... ἀλλὰ καί 369, 393; ov 
γὰρ ἀλλά 369 ; οὐχ ὅτι, οὐχ οἷον ὅτι 
372; οὐ πάντως 389. 

οὗ 81, 71, 105. 

οὐά, οὐαί 72; ovat Fem. 126; constr. of 
154. 

οὐδέ (μηδέ) single and double 366 sq. ; 
οὐδέ with οὔτε following etc. 367 
note; ne... quidem 369; οὐδέ, μηδὲ 
eis 121. 

ovdels: use of οὐδὲ εἷς, εἷς... οὗ, οὐ ... 
πᾶς etc. 121; οὐδέν with Mase. or 
Fem. substs. 127, 152. 

οὐθείς 28, 

οὖν 370; ἄρα οὖν 371; οὐκοῦν 249; μὲν 
οὖν, μενοῦνγε 870 84. 

οὐράνιος 25. 

οὐρανοί, οἱ 24. 

Οὐρίας 18. 

ots: ὦτα ἀκούειν 259. 

οὔτε (μήτε) single and doubled 366 sq. ; 
used for οὐδέ 1 369 ; οὔτε. .. τε (καί) 
368. 

οὗτος (ὅδε) 103sq.; and ἐκεῖνος N. T. 
use of 104; in specifications of time 
104 ; omitted before relative 104 sq. ; 
redundantly with forward reference 
before ὅτι etc. 105; with and with- 
out the Art. 119 sq.; as subject 125, 
128; resumptive 306, 376, 399 ; αὕτη 
and αὐτή 109; cf. τοῦτο. 

οὕτως and οὕτω 9; as predicate 131; re- 
sumptive of Participle 306 at the 
beginning of a conclusion 357 ; re- 
sumptive 399 ; taking place of the 
Part. 357; after a protasis with εἰ 
357. 

ὄφελον constr. with 214 sq., 374. 

ὀφθαλμός in circumlocutions 319. 

ὀφθῆναί τινι 187. 

ὀφθήσομαι 64. 

6 ὄχλος πολύς equiv. to vulgus 91 ; ὄχλος 
with Plur. Pred. 130; and both S:ng. 
and Plur. 130. 

ὀψέ with Gen. of time 159. 

ὄψει -y 42 sq. 

ὄψησθε 36. 

ὀψώνια, τά 34. 


6 ὧν καὶ ὃ ἦν 50, 204. 


παῆναι 65. 

παθητός 42. 

παῖδες κ. γυναῖκες 89. 

παιδεύω in Pass. 189. 

παίζω 64. 

πάλιν represented by a fin. verb 300. 
πανοικί NOt πανοικεί 73. 

πάντη, πάντῃ 69. 

πάντως οὐ and οὐ πάντως 389. 


INDEX. 


παρά, uses of 339; with ἀκούειν 166; 
after passives 187; with Dat. after 
verb of motion 285; with Acc. used 
tropically 539 ; in comparison 339. 

παραδοῦναι intrans. 145 note; εἰς χεῖρας 
182; ὁ παραδούς and παραδιδούς 
297. 

παραινεῖν constr. of 177, 358 ; Infin. after 
273. 


παραγγέλλειν ἵνα 237; with Infin. 273, 
275. 


παράγειν intrans. 144. 

παρακαλεῖν iva 236, 237, 258; Infin. after 
273; παρακαλεῖν constr. with 270. 

παραρυῶμεν 67. 

παρατηρεῖν ἵνα 237. 

παραυτίκα 321. 

παρεῖναι ellipsis of 138. 

παρεισέδυσαν 56. 

mapetxay 40. 

[παρεμβάλλω 149.] 

Παρμενᾶς 20. 

παροργίζω Fut. of 37. 

mwas with and without the Art. 119sq.; 
ov... mas and mwas... ov 121; πᾶν 
in a concrete and collective sense 
122; Gen. πάντων as a general ex- 
pression with Fem. 374. 

πατήρ omission of 94. 

παύω 64; constr. of 158; with Participle 
300. 

πείθειν ἵνα 238 note, 240. 

meds 73. 

πεινάω forms of 37; contraction 44; with 
Ace, 147. 

πειράζειν constr. of 164. 

πέμπω, ἔπεμψα apparently for Perf. 198 ; 
ἐν 329, 


πενθεῖν constr. of 147. 

πεποιθέναι constr. of 175, 337. 

περί use of 335; with verbs of accusing 
165; of περί τινα 95; in sense of 
ὑπέρ 336. 

περιάγειν intrans. 144; and with a new 
object 144. 

περιβάλλειν constr. of 149; in Mid. 191. 

περιέστραψεν 34. 

περιέχει impers. use of 135 note, 144, 

περιζώννυσθαι in Mid. 191. 

περίκειμαι 50, 189 sq. 

περιούσιος 73 86. 

περιπατεῖν with Dat. 184. 

περιποιεῖσθαι 192. 

περισσεύειν constr. of 164, 169. 

περισσός with Gen. compar. 168. 

περισσότερον, περισσοτέρως 69. 

πέτομαι 65. 

πιάζω 66; with Gen. 161. 

πιέζω 66. 

πίεσαι 42. 

πῖθι 67. 

Πιλᾶτος accent 6; inflection 18. 

| πίμπλημι 66. 





GREEK INDEX. 


πίνω forms of 66; with Gen. 159. 

wit:w 67; ἐν 329. 

πιστεύω signification and constructions 

. of 173 sq., 337; τῇ καρδίᾳ and ἐν τ. 

«. 182; Infin. after 273. 

πιστὸς ἐν ete. 174. 

-tAaglwy 30. 

πλεῖον indecl. 127. 

πλεονεκτεῖν constr. of 168; in Pass. 188. 

πλεονεξίαι 77. 

πληγή omitted 82. 

πλῆθος with Plur. pred. 130. 

πλημμύρης 11. 

πλήν in N. T. 320; for δέ 365. 

πλησίον as Pred. 131. 

πλοῦς Gen. of 13. 

πλοῦτος, τό and 6 22. 

πνεῦμα ἅγιον anarthrous 89. 

ποδήρην 13. 

ποιεῖν εὖ, καλῶς 146; with Part. 300; 
with Acc. of time i.q. spend 146; 
constr. of 149, 150; Middle 193; 
τί ποιήσομεν and ποιήσωμεν 209; ἵνα 
238, 240; Infin. with τοῦ 270; to 
be supplied 394. 

πολλά adverb 123. 

πολύς followed by Part. with Art. 93. 

πονηρίαι Plur. 77. 

πορεύεσθαι: εἰς and ἐν εἰρήν. 184; Fut. 
force of Pres. 204. 

πόρρω as Pred. 131. 

πότερον... % 32, 250. 

ποτίζειν constr. of 149; in Pass. 188. 

Ποτίολοι 18. 

mov, ποῖ 71. 

Tlovdns 17. 

mpacws 26. 

πρᾷος, Tpais 26. 

πραότης, mpaitns 26. 

mpacial mpaciai 30, 139. 

πράττειν εὖ, with Participle 300. 

πρέπει 135; constrns. with 278. 

πρὶν ἤ constr. with 231, 232, 279. 

vod in specifins. of space and time 153; 
foll. by rod and Infin. 265; πρὸ 
προσώπου 319. 

προάγειν intrans. and with new obj. 144; 
Fut. force of Pres. 204. 

προβάλλειν 145. 

προέρχεσθαι with Acc. of pers. 144. 

προκόπτειν 145. 

mpoopauny 64. 

πρός with Infin, Acc. 266; with Gen. and 
Dat. 340; with Acc. to denote rest 
340; in comparison 340; in elliptical 
and adverbial phrases 340; as peri- 
phrasis for Dat. 172, 177; πρός με, 
πρός σε 31. 

προσαναλῶσαι 172. 

προσέπαισαν 40 note. 

προσευχῇ προσεύχεσθαι 184; ἵνα 237. 

προσέχειν 144: ἀπό 323; ἐπί 337. 

προσήλυτος 74. 





428 


προσκαλεῖσθαί τινα 192. 

προσκυνεῖν constr. of 147. 

προσλαμβάνεσθαι constr. of 60sq., 192. 

προσπαίω 40. 

προστίθεσθαι with Part. i.g. again 299 sq. 

προσωπολημψίαι Plur. 77. 

πρόσωπον in circumlocution 90, 319. 

πρότερος and πρῶτος 22. 

προφητεύω augment 35. 

mpépa accent and spelling 11; Gen. -ms 
it. 

πρωτοκλισίαι Plur. 77. 

πρῶτος and πρῶτον 83; πρῶτος for πρό- 
τερος 32, 84. 

πύλη Omission of 82. 

πυνθάνομαι constr. of 167. 


p Gen. after in -ns 11. 

p doubling of after augment 32. 
ῥαββί spelling 6. 

ῥαπίζω Fut. of 37. 

ῥεραντισμένοι 88. 

ῥεριμμένον 33. 

péw 67. 

“Ῥήγνυμι sc. φωνήν 146. 

ῥῆμα κυρίου, λέγων 298. 

pp and po 7. 


-σαι 2d Pers. Sing. in 42. 

oo and rr 7. 

σάββατον etc. 23. 

-σαι in 2d Sing. Pass. 42. 

σαλπίζω forms 37; σαλπίζει sc. σαλπιγ- 
κτής 134. 

σαλπιστῆς 37. 

Σαλωμών 16. 

Σαμάρεια 17. 

Σαούλ and Σαῦλος 6, 18. 

Σάπφειρα, -ns 8, 11. 

Σαρών Acc. -dva, -dpwva, -va 16. 

σατανᾶς 20; without the Art. 89. 

σεαυτοῦ etc. use of 110. 

σημᾶναι 41. 

σημεῖον περιτομῆς 78. 

σημειοῦσθαι 192. 

-σθωσαν 3d Plur. Imperative 42. 

Σιδών -Gvos 16. 

σίκερα, τό 24. 

Σίλας, Σιλουανός 20. 

Σιλωάμ, 6 and ἡ 21. 

Σίμων -wvos 16. 

Σινᾶ, τό 21. 

σινάπεως 14. 

Σιών, τό 21 ; ἡ 22. 

σκανδαλισθῆναι ete. sense 52. 

σκάπτειν sc. γῆν 146. 

σκέπτομαι 67. 

Σκευᾶς 20. 

σκοπεῖν μή 243. 

σκότος, τό 92. 

Σόδομα, τά 21. : 

Σολομών declension and accent 16. 

σός 115. 


496 GREEK 


cov for reflexive 110, 115; for possessive 


115; position of 3-44. 

σουδάριον 18. 

Σουσάννα 17. 

σπάσασθαι μάχαιραν 192. 

σπεῖρα accent [1] ; -ρης 11. 

σπείρειν σπόρον 148. 

σπλαγχνίζεσθαι sense 52; constr. 164. 

σπουδάσω 53. 

oo and tr 7. 

σταθήσομαι sense 47. 

στάχυς uncontracted 14 

Srepavas 20. 

στήκω forms of 48; with Dat. 178 note?. 

στῆναι ct. ἵστημι. 

στηρίζω characteristic 36. 

στοιχεῖν with Dat. 184. 

στόμα use of in circumln. 90, 183, 187, 
320 and note. 

στρατεύεσθαι στρατείαν 148. 

στρατιά with Plur. pred. 130. 

στρατοπεδάρχης 73. 

στρέφειν intrans. 145. 

στρώννυμι 67 ; sc. κλίνην 146. 

στρωννύω 45. 

συγγενῆν 13; συγγενεῦσι 25, 

συγκαλεῖν and -εἶσθαι 193. 

συλλαμβάνειν and ova. ἐν γαστρί 146. 

συμβάλλειν 145. 

Συμεών indecl. 16. 

συμπόσια συμπόσια 30, 139. 

συμφέρειν ἵνα 240. 

σύμφυτοι with Gen. 169. 

συμφωνεῖν with Gen. and with ἐκ 164. 

συν unassimilated in compos. 8; used 
for καί 331; besides 331. 

συνειδυίης 12. 

συνεργεῖν 193. 

-συνὴ abstract nouns in 73. 

συνήθειά ἐστιν ἵνα 240. 

συνήχθησαν meaning and use of 52. 

συνιέναι constr. of 167. 

συνιοῦσιν, -ίουσιν 48. 

συνιστάναι ἵνα 237. 

συνίων, -ἰῶν, (-ιών) 48 sq. 

σχίζω Fut. of 37. 


ταβέρναι 17. 

ταπεινώθητε reflexive 52. 

τὰ πολλά adverbially 96. 

-τάτως adverbs in 69. 

ταὐτά and τὰ αὐτά 10. 

ταχύς comparison of 27. 

τέ connecting Participles 297; τε καί 
860 sq.; καί τε 361; τέ... τέ 861. 

τέκνον with Gen. of abstract 161 sq. 

τελευτάω 145. 

τελέω With Part. 300. 

-reos verbals in 190. 

τέρας uncontracted 15. 

-τέρως adverbs in 69. 

τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατος 29. 

τέσσερες, τεσσεράκοντα 29. 





INDEX. 


τέτευχα, τέτυχα 67. 

τηρεῖν ἐκ 527. 

τίθημι forms of 45, 46; constr. of 150; 
ἵνα 238; ἐν 329. 

τιμῆς dearly 164. 

τίς, τὶς 31. 

τὶς, τὶ for Indef. Art. 85; followed by 
Part. with Art. 93, 295; in pregnant 
or emphatic sense 114 ef. p. 127; 
omitted 158, 159. 

tls, τί, for simple Rel. and vice versa 115; 
for πότερος 115; τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί 138; 
τί πρὸς σέ etc. 138; τί quam 253; 
τί ὅτι 858. 

τοίνυν 372. 

τοιοῦτος, τοσοῦτος With Art. 87. 

-ros verbals in 41 sq., 190. 

τότε as a connective 401. 

τοὐναντίον 10. 

τοὔνομα 10; used adverbially 139. 

τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, τουτέστι 11, 400. 

τοῦτο as a preparatory Demons. before 
ἵνα, ὅτι, or the Infin., 105, 240, 262, 
263 cf. 400. 

ττ and oo 7. 

τυγχάνω 67 ; τυχόν used absolutely 318. 


4 


v and o interchanged 5. 

ὑγιαίνειν ἐν τῇ πίστει and τῇ πίστει 182. 

ὑγιής Acc. -ἢ 15. 

ὕδωρ or ὑετός to be supplied 82, 

vids Voc. 12; with Gen. of abstract 161sq. 

ὑμέτερος use of 116. 

τυμι and -dw 45. 

ὑμῶν for possessive 116; between Subst. 
and Art 116. 

ὑπάγειν intrans. for ἰέναι 144, 204, ef. 255; 
Fut. force of Pres. 204. 

ὑπάρχειν with Part. 300; without ὥν 804, 

ὑπέρ for περί 335; with Acc. in com- 
parison 335; adverbially and in 
composition 321; ὑπὲρ ἐγώ 321. 

ὑπεράνω 321. 

ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ with Gen. compar. 168, 

ὑπερέχειν intrans. and with new obj. 144; 
with Gen. or Acc. 169. 

ὑπερλίαν 321. 

iwé after Passives 187, 340; with Gen, 
and Ace. 340sq.; with Acc. par- 
ticularly after εἶναι, γίνεσθαι 841. 

ὑποδεῖσθαι constr. of 191. 

ὑποκάτω 321. 

ὑποκρίσεις Plur. 77. 

ὑποτάγητε reflexive 52." 

ὑστερεῖν constr. of 158, 169. 

ὕψιστος without the Art. (ἐν ὑψίστοις) 89 
and note. 


φαγεῖν with Gen. 159. 
φάγεσαι 42, 58. 
φάγος, φαγός 73. 
φαιλόνης 17. 


GREEK 


φαίνεσθαι with Participle 300, 304. 

φάνῃ (φαίνῃ, φανῇ) 41. 

Φαραώ 15. 

φαύσκω 67. 

φείδεσθαι constr. of 165. 

φέρω 68. 

φεύγειν constr. of 146. — 

Φῆλιξ accent 13; -κος 16. 

φησί sc. 6 θεός or ἡ γραφή 134; with 
indef. Subj. 136. 

φθάνω 68. 

φθόνοι Plur. 77. 

φθονεῖν constr. of 165. 

Φιλῆς 20. 

Φίλιπποι, of 21. 

ᾧΦιμωθῆναι intrans. sense 52. 

φοβεῖσθαι constr. with 148, 192, 323; 
with μή 241 sq. 

‘ popéw 37. 

φορτίζειν constr. of 149. 

φραγέλλιον 18. 

φυλάσσειν φυλακάς 148; Aor. in Pass. 
191; constr. of 192, 323; Act. and 
Mid. 193sq.; φυλ. va 237. 

φύω 68. 

φωνὴ ... λέγων 130. 


χαλκολίβανος (not -vov) Fem. 80 note. 

χαίρειν, χαράν 148; χαρᾷ 184; construc. of 
185; ἐν κυρίῳ 185; with Participle 300. 

χαρήσομαι, χαροῦμαι 68. 

χάρις, Acc. χάριτα 18. 

χαρίζομαι Fut. of 37; Aor. Pass. 52. 

χειλέων 14. 

χειμῶνος 170. 

χείρ ellipsis of 82; use of in periphrases 
90, 182 sq., 187, 319. 

χερουβείν spelling 6; Gend. 21. 

χέω 68. 

χιλίαρχος 73. 

Χοραζίν spelling 6. 

χορτασθῆναι constr. of 163, 167. 

Xou as 20. 

χρείαν ἔχειν ἵνα 240; with Infin. 164, 
259 note 





INDEX. 427 


χρή constr. of 147, 164. 

χρήζειν (for δεῖν) 164. 

χρηματίζω Fut. of 37; in Pass. 188. 
χρῆσθαι, καταχρῆσθαι with Acc. 181. 
χρηστά, χρῆστα 11. 

χρίειν constr. of 149. 

Χριστός anarthrous 89. 

χρονίζειν Fut. of 37. 

χρόνος omission of 82. 

χρύσεος 26. 

χύω, χύνω, χύννω 69. 

χώρα omission of 82. 

χωρίζω Fut. of 37. 

Xa@pos 18. 


ψεύδεσθαι with Dat. 172. 
ψυγήσομαι 69. 


ὦ its use with Vocs. 140.. 

ὧδε as a local particle 71 

ὠθέω 69. 

τῶν proper names in 15 sq. 

-wy, -ἰστος adverbs formed from 70. 

ὥν omitted 330 sq. 

ὠνέομαι 69. 

ὥρα ellipsis of 82; ἡ ἔρχεται ἵνα 240; 
ἐστίν foll. by Infin. 260; πρὸς ὥραν 
Sor the moment 340. 

-ws adverbs in 69. 

-ws, Gen. -w, proper names in 20 86. 

ὡς after ὁμοιοῦν 177 ; ὡς ἂν εἰ μήτι 219 8q.; 
ὡς ἄν as soon as with Subjune. 232 ; 
as causal particle 233; for ὥστε with 
Infin. 244; ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν 261 ; with 
Fut. Part. 296, 307 sq.; not found 
with Acc. abs. 317; before Gen. abs. 

, 3818; ὡς ὅτι 358; transposition 

in clauses with 389. 

ὥστε constr. with 243 sq. 279, after ro- 
σοῦτος 244 ; ὡς instead of 244; with 
telic force 244 ; negatives with 349. 

ὥφελον 374. 

pO appeared 52, 64, 187. 

ὦτα ἀκούειν 259. 


| 


I, INDEX OF PASSAGES CITED FROM THE 
SEPTUAGINT. 


. ii. 17 

. ii, 24 

. iv. 2 

. iv. 25, 26 
.v. 2,3 


viii. 10 


. xii. 2 

~ Εν ἃ 

. XV. 5 sq. 

. Xv. 6 

. xv. 13 

. XVii. 17 

. XVili. 18 

» xix, 17 

- eu, 38 

. Xxii. 17 

. Xxii. 20 

. Xxx. 38, 41 
. Xxxi. 30 

. XXxiii. 10 
. XXxiii. 19 
. XXXiv. 6 

. XXxiv. 7 

. XXXViii. 20 
. XXXViii. 24 
, xlii. 7 

, xiii. 2 

. xiii. 6 

. xliv. 4 

. xliv. 7 

. xlv. 16 

. xlv. 27 

. xlvii. 4 


. li. 21 


Exod. iii. 10 
Exod. iv. 9 
Exod. iv. 17 
Exod. v. 18 
Exod. v. 22 
Exod. viii. 21 


' Exod. viii. 24 


Exod. x. 28 
Exod. xiv. 13 
Exod. xvi. 27 
Exod. xvii. 12 
Exod. xix. 11, 18 
Exod. xx. 10 





The Figures refer to Pages. 





12, 





Exod. xxiii. 26 
Exod. xxx. 18 
Exod. xxx. 19 
Exod. xl. 2 


. XVii. 10, 18 
. Xix. 12 
. XXili. 32 


. V. 24, 26 
. vi. 8 
ee ee 


. i, 29 


Deut. xii. 16 
Deut. xiii. 15 
Deut. xiv. 23 
Deut. xiv. 26 
Deut. xv. 18 
Deut. xvi. 2, 5, 18 
Deut. xvi. 13 
Deut. xviii. 19 
Deut. xix. 15 
Deut. xx. 17 
Deut. xxviii. 13 
Deut. xxix. 13 
Deut. xxix. 18 


Jud 


. li. 13 

. vi. 18 

. πὶ. 8 

. xi. 6 

. xi. 19 

. xi. 22 

. xiv. 9 

. Xxiii. 2 
. Xxiv. 13 
. Xxiv. 20 


. 8 
Judg. vii. 14, 18 


161, 


O T. INDEX. 





Judg. ix. 28 858 | 1 Chron. xvi. 36 176 
Judg. xi. 27 173 | 1 Chron. xvii. 6 254 
Judg. xiii. 4 121 
Judg. xiii. 11 249 | 2 Chron. iv. 6 63 
Judg. xvi. 17 327 | 2 Chron. ix. ὃ 376 
Judg. xvi. 2 12 | 2 Chron. xi. 22 150 
Judg. xxi. 8 _ 12 | 2 Chron. xix. 10 173 
2 Chron. xx. 19 176 
Ruth iii. 2 280 | 2 Chron. xxxv. 21 138 
2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 183 
1 Sam. i. 2, 5 17 
1 Sam. i. 13 151 | Ezra (2 Esdr.) ix. 6 12 
1 Sam. i. 17 184 | Ezra (2 Esdr.) x. 1€ 30 
1 Sam. iii. 14 358 
1 Sam. iii. 17 359 | Neh. iii. 28 20 
1 Sam. ix. 9 151 | Neh. viii. 12 280 
1 Sam. x. 3 102 | Neh. ix. 21 169 
1 Sam. x. 24 249 | Neh. ix. 34 143 
1 Sam. xii. 25 183 
1 Sam. xiv. 36 68 | Jobi. 11 358 
1 Sam. xv. 10 298 | Joby. 13 291 
1 Sam. xv. 20 184 | Job vi. 24 149 
1 Sam. xvii. 34 223 | Job vii. 2 67 
1 Sam. xviii. 22 376 | Job xvi. 22 59 
- 1 Sam. xx. 41 145 | Job xix. 16 55 
1 Sam. xxiv. 16 182 | Job xxii. 3 223 
1 Sam. xxv. 20 12 | Job xxii. 2u 358 
1 Sam. xxvii. 12 174 | Job xxv. 5 67 
Job xxix. 14 49 
2 Sam. iii. 28 158 | Job xxx. 25 358 
* 2 Sam. iii. 34 : 39 | Job xxxi. 36 358 
2 Sam. iii. 35 359 | Job xxxix. 5 23 
2 Sam. v. 6 57 | Job xl. 5 49 
2 Sam. vi. 20 254 
2 Sam. vii. 4 298 | Psalm iv. 2 64 . 
2 Sam. vii. 7 254 | Psalm v. 9 : 43 
2 Sam. vii. 14 150 | Psalm v. 12 176, 185 
2 Sam. xi. 11 358 | Psalm vii. 2 176 
2 Sam. xii. 3 121 | Psalm xiv. 1, δ 121 
2 Sam. xv. 26 376 | Psalm xvii. 1 316 
2 Sam. xv. 31 384 | Psalm xxii. 1 169 
2 Sum. xvi. 10 138.| Psalm xxv. 20 176 
2 fam. xix. 1 384 | Psalm xxviii. 7 59 
2 Sam. xix. 22 138 | Psalm xxxii. 21 176 
2 Sam. xx. 20 358 | Psalm xxxix. 6 251 
: Ἂς Psalm xxxix. 7 185 
1 Kings viii. 29 287 | Psalm xli. 12 57 
1 Kings x. 9 376 | Psalm xliii. 23 161 
1 Kings xiii. 10 280 | Psalm xlvii. 4 223 
1 Kings xvii. 8 298 | Psalm xlviii. 13, 21 35 
1 Kings xviii. 42 22 | Psalm Ixv. 14 61 
1 Kings xx. (xxi) 18 85 | Psalm lxvii. 19 148 
δ τα Psalm Ixxvii. 22 174 
2 Kings ii. 25 22 | Psalm Ixxx. 14 184 
2 Kings ix. 7 182 | Psalm Ixxxv. 9 172 
2 Kings xi. 3 40 | Psalm lxxxvii. 6 69 
2 Kings xviii. 5 176 | Psalm χουν: 11 358, 359 
2 Kings xviii. 13 18 | Psalm ex. 1 49 
2 Kings xxiii. 34 18 | Psalm exvii. 22 150, 288 
2 Kings xxiv. 4 69 | Psalm exviii. 23 123 
Psalm exviii. 32 228 
1 Chron. iii. 17 18 | Psalm exix. 7 223 
1 Chron. vi. 77 22 | Psalm cxx. 7 324 


430 


Psalm ecxxxii. 13 
Psalm exly. 13 


Prov. i. 27 
Prov. vi. 6 
Prov. xii. 10 
Prov. xxvi. 11 


Eccl. iii. 19 
Ecel. vi. 2 
Eccl. viii. 12 


Cant. ii. 7 
Cant. vii. 6 


Isa. vi. 4 

188. vi. 9 

Isa. vi. 10 
Isa. viii. 21 - 
158. xiv. 24 
Isa. xix. 22 
Isa. xxii. 13 
Isa. xxiv. 3 
Isa. xxvi. 20 
Isa. xxviii. 16 
Isa. xxix. 10 
Isa. xxx. 19 
Isa. xxxii. 15 sq. 
Isa, xxxiii. 4 
Isa. xxxiil. 15 
Isa. xlii. 4 
Isa. xlvii. 3 
Isa. xlix. 1 
Isa. xlix. 6 
Isa. li. 5 

Isa. liii. 12 
Isa. Ixvi. 10 
Isa. lxvi. 23 


Jer. i. 17 
Jer. ii. 20 
Jer. ii. 36 
Jer. ix. 23 
Jer. x. 2 
Jer. xii. 6 
Jer. xii. 18 
Jer. xx. 13 
Jer. xxi. 10 
Jer. xxv. 1 


Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 5 


Jer. 


Jer 


. XXVi. (xlvi.) 18 
. Xxxi. (xlviil.) 9 
. XXxi, 13 
XXxviii. (xxxi.) 15, 33 
. XXXVili, (xxxi.) 34 


Lam. i. 17 
Lam. iii. 57 
Lam. iii. 43 


O. T. INDEX. 


62, 


254, 


183 
324 
291 
212 


22 
316 
62 





Ezek. ii. 6 
Ezek. iii. 9 
Ezek. iv. 9 
Ezek. vi. 2 
Ezek. xxii. 5 


Dan. viii. 3 
Joel iii. 1 sq. 
Amos i. 1 
Amos iv. 7 


Amos ix. 12 


Jonah ii. 5 
Jonah iii. 3 


Mic. vi. 14 
Hab. i. 10 
Hab. ii. 3 
Hab. ii. 4 
Zech. viii. 2 


Zech. ix. 5 
Zech. ix. 9 


Mal. ii. 5 


Tobit iv. 5 
Tobit v. 12 (18) 


Judith i. 12 


Sap. iv. 4 
Sap. ix. 1 


Sir. (Ecclus.) xi. 5 


Sir. xv. 3 
Sir. xvii. 14 
Sir. xx. 16 
Sir. xx. 22 
Sir. xxiv. 81 
Sir. xlvi. 12 


Bar. i. 3 
Bar. ii. 28 


Sus. 27 
Sus. 52 


1 Mace. i. 6 

1 Mace. iii. 80 
1 Mace. x. 89 
1 Mace. xi. 40 
1 Mace. xy. 2 


2 Macc ix. 18 
2 Mace xi. 16 


IV. INDEX OF PASSAGES IN THE NEW TEST 
EXPLAINED OR CITED. 





The Figures refer to Pages; those followed by an Asterisk indicate passages 
not merely referred to or quoted, but commented upon. 








Matt. i. 6 16, 94 | Matt. iv. 15 153 
Matt. i. 10 19 | Matt. iv. 16 143, 381 
Matt. i. 11 336 | Matt. iv. 18 3i2 
Matt. i. 15 6 | Matt. iv. 23 106 (bis), 297 
Matt. i. 18 131, 164, 279, 301, 314, | Matt. iv. 24 297 
315*, 327 | Matt. iv. 25 342 

Matt. i. 19 69 
Matt. i. 20 12,17 | Matt. v. 1 815 (bis) 
Matt. i. 21 106, 151 | Matt. v. 2 63, 398 
Matt. v. 3 109, 163 
Matt. ii. 2 261 | Matt. v. 4 108, 109 
Matt. ii. 8 18* | Matt. v. 5 109 
Matt. ii. 4 38, 98, 203* | Matt. v. 6 109, 147 
Matt. ii. 6 158 | Matt. v. 7 109 
Matt. ii. 8 231 | Matt. v. 8, 9, 10 109 
Matt. ii. 9 144, 166 | Matt. v. 11 177, 223 
Matt. ii. 10 184 | Matt. v. 13 124, 182 
Matt. ii. 12 188 | Matt. v, 15 44 
Matt. ii. 13 49, 270 | Matt. v. 16 172 
Matt. ii. 15. : 118 | Matt. v. 17 261 
Matt. ii. 16 64 | Matt. v. 18 121, 126, 127 
Matt. ii. 18 147, 291 | Matt. v. 19 83, 229 
Matt. ii. 20 77 | Matt. v. 20 168*, 169, 246 
Matt. ii. 22 169 (bis) | Matt. v. 21 57, 170*, 187 
Matt. ii. 23 6, 332 | Matt. v. 22 170* 
Matt. v. 24 115, 402 
Matt. iii. 1 sq. 298 | Matt. v. 25 31, 46, 231 
Matt. iii. 8 309 | Matt. v. 27 ; 257 
Matt. iii. 4 324 | Matt. v. 29 110, 170, 240 
Matt. iii. 9 113 | Matt. v. 30 110, 170, 240 
Matt. v. 38 53, 257 
Matt. iii. 11 108, 182*, 204* | Matt. v. 34 349 
Matt. iii. 12 87, 280 | Matt. v. 34 sq. 147, 367 
Matt. iii. 13 270 | Matt. v. 37 168 
Matt, iii. 14 81, 205*, 259 | Matt. v. 38 291, 394 
Matt. iii. 15 131, 278, 401 | Matt. v. 39 87, 122, 219, 349 
Matt. iii. 16 24, 63, 112 | Matt. v. 40 52*, 143, 177, 331 
Matt, iii. 17 124,198 | Matt. v. 41 219, 229 
Matt. v. 42 324 
Matt. iy. 1 : 261 | Matt. v. 44 146 
Matt. iv. 4 58 | Matt. v. 47 83 
Matt. iv. 8 . 45 | Matt. v. 48 257 

Matt. iv. 9 sq. 401 
Matt. iv. 11 401 | Matt. vi. 1 52, 393 
Matt. iv. 12 803 | Matt. vi. 2 37, 110, 203* 
Matt. iv. 13 6 (bis), 118, 297, 332 ; Matt. vi. 3 818 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Mait. 


566. 


N. T. INDEX. 


265 
52, 362* 

48 

137 

345, 346 

300 

300 
111, 146 (bis) 
111, 367 

125 

136 

9 (bis), 28, 102 (Lis) 
127, 186, 255, 366 
125, 366 

54, 125, 251, 366 
16, 369 

49, 206* 

127, 186 


52* 


| 
| 


! 


182 | 


115, 210 


115, 257 | 


182, 211, 368 
63, 290 

205 

223, 248, 284*, 384 
223, 248 


249, 324* 
324, 371 
122 

183* 
141, 176 
166, 219 


143, 315 
29 


Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. i 
Matt. 
Matt. i 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
_ Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 


| Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


| Matt. 


68, 106*, 243 | 
143, 315 
52, 73, 115, 240, 844. 


341 
88* 

73 

312 

289 
251*, 255 (bis) 


112 | 





143 | 


244, 312, 340 
45 

143, 315 

61, 71, 138,394 
312 

273 


320* 


Matt. 
Matt. 


49, 56 
56, 385, 401 
3 


38 
277, 312, 315 
123 

204* 

64, 69* 

58*, 118, 315 
161 

52 

£2 (bis), 63, 243 
106 


33, 52, 164 
55 


244 
297* 
328%, 366 
366 

288, 349 
132, 329 
64 


3 
293, 251, 255 (bis) 
124, 356 


151*, 239%, 384* 
211, 355, 368 
327 

61, 192, 211 

121 

310* 

172, 176, 219, 229, 379 
172, 229 

89, 335 

348, 368 

112, 193 

82, 213 


106*, 270, 277, 300* 
249 


261 


171, 224 
149, 176, 362 
140, 172 

26*, 110, 290, 324 


14, 23, 37 


Matt. xii. 2 
Matt. xii. 3 
Matt. xii. 3 sqq. 
Matt. xii. 5 
Matt. xii. 7 
Matt. xii. 9 
Matt. xii. 10 
Matt. xii. 12 
Matt. xii. 13 
Matt. xii. 15 
Matt. xii. 18 
Matt. xii. 19 
Matt. xii. 20 
Matt. xii. 21 
Matt. xii. 22 
Matt. xii. 23 
Matt. xii. 25 
Matt. xii. 28 
Matt. xii. 29 
Matt. xii. 32 
Matt. xii. 36 
Matt. xii. 37 
Matt. xii. 38 
Matt. xii. 42 
Matt. xii. 45 
Matt. xii. 50 


Matt. xiii. 2 
Matt. xiii. 3 
Matt. xiii. 4 
Matt. xiii. 5 
Matt. xiii. 8 
Matt. xiii. 9 
Matt. xiii. 12 
Matt. xiii. 13 
Matt. xiii. 14 
Matt. xiii. 15 
Matt. xiii. 17 
Matt. xiii. 19 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 31 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 37 sq. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 51 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 
Matt. xiii. 


Matt. xiv. 2 


N. T. INDEX. 


186, 348 
37, 126 
249 

23, 186 
165 

106* 
233, 249 (bis), 312* 
23, 243 
35, 122 
106 

185 

37, 366 
28, 53 
37, 176* 
244, 312 
124* 
38*, 47, 112, 127 
68, 371 
54 

367 

229, 379 
398 

325 

16 

125 

108, 279* 


88*, 244 
270 

102, 263 
263, 349 
30, 102 


53, 178, 184, 212*, 313 


62, 211, 368 

369 

125, 309, 329, 350 
125 


259 
118 142, 325 
159 

37 

46 

277 

17 

340 


108 





Matt. xiv. 3 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


| Matt. 


Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


433 

329 

xiv. 3 sq. 200 
xiv. 6 317 
xiv. 7 227 
xiv. 8 71, 336 
xiv. 9 275 
xiv. 14 106 (15) 
xiv. 15 112 
xiv. 16 132 
xiv. 17 14 
xiv. 18 71 
xiv. 22 236 
xiv. 26 325 
xiv. 27 314 
xiv. 28 31, 110 
xiv. 29 338 
xiv. 33 324* 
xiv. 36 233 
xv. 2 63 
xv. 5 213 
xv. 12 51 
xv. 16 153 
xv. 20 262 
xv. 23 44 
xv. 27 159 
xv. 28 140 
xv. 30 112 
xv. 81 301 
Xv. 32 26*, 119,139, 186, 255, 369 
Xv. 33 244, 245* 
xv. 35 275* 
xvi. 7 358* 
xvi. 8 113 
xvi. 14 102 
xvi. 16 124 
xvi. 17 146* 
xvi. 18 200, 337, 364 
xvi. 19 24, 72, 311* 
xvi. 20 108, 245 
xvi. 21 45, 98, 245, 326 
Xvi. 22 137, 161, 212 
xvi. 23 117*, 319* 
Xvi. 24 112 
Xvi. 25 72, 229 
Xvi. 26 189 
xvi. 28 71, 213, 330* 
xvii. 3 52*, 127*, 312 
xvii. 4 71, 103 
xvii. 7 52 
Xvii. 8 118 
Xvii. 9 230 
xvii. 11 865 
xvii. 12 149, 341 
Xvii. 14 316 
XVil. 16 33 
Xvii. 17 140 
xvii. 19 33 
Xvii. 20 54 
xvii. 25 299, 324 
XVii. 26 316, 324, 371 


434 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Mait. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Xvii. 27 


XViii. 
XViil. 
XVlil. 


Xvi 


XVilii. 
XVlii. 
XViii. 
XViii. 


Xvi 
Xvi 


ii. 


ῷ ὦ “τ σὺ οι Ne 


ii. 10 
ii. 12 


Xviii, 14 
Xviii. 15 
XViii. 16 
XViii. 18 
Xviii. 19 
XViii. 21 
XViii, 22 
XVili, 24 
XViil. 25 
XVlii. 27 
XViii. 29 
XViii, 80 
XViii, 31 


XVill. 33 | 


XViii. 34 


Xix. 
Xix. 
Xix. 
ΧΙΧ, 
xix. 


mown = 


xix. 10 


X1X 


411 


xix, 12 


xix 


- 13 


xix. 16 


XIX 


. 18 


xix. 19 
xix. 20 
XIx. 22 


Xix 
xix 


. 25 
27 


xix, 28 


XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX. 
XX, 
XX. 


N. T. INDEX. 


104*, 110 


84 

142, 329 

112, 229 

337 

174 

822 

110, 118, 306, 360 
110, 170 

243 

125, 338* 
172 

54, 60, 110, 402 
28, 110, 320 
311 

229, 285 

54, 173, 290* 
30 

315 

275, 315, 351 
164 

273 

230 

116 

217 

230 (bis) 


277 
106* 
249 

10 

349 

131 
122 

84, 112 
233 


37, 60, 119 


320 
164 

83 

301 

402 

374 

332 

164 

248%, 249 
312 

98, 165, 204 
264 

149, 193 


103, 237 | 


193, 259 
66, 163, 262 
51 





Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt 


. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Kx. 89 
xx. 33 


XXi. 
Xxi. 
XXi. 
Xxi. 
rt, 
XXi. 
XXi. 
Xxi. 
XXi. 
Xxi. 
XXi. 
ΧΧΊ. 
ΧΧΙ. 
XXi. 
XXi. 
XXi. 


φΦ ὦ Οὐ -ἰ ὅὐ ὦ "αὶ 


Xxi. 26 


ΧΧΙ. 


xxi. 81 
χχὶ. 82 


XXi. 


Xxi. 36 


XXii. 
XXii. 
Xxil. 
XXil. 
XXii. 
Xxil. 
XXiil. 
XXii. 
XXii. 
XXii. 
XXii. 
XXii. 
XXil. 
XXii. 
XxXii. 
XXii. 
XXii. 
XXii. 
XXii. 
XxXii. 


XXiili. 
XXili. 
XXiii. 
XXili. 
XXili. 
XXili. 
XXili. 
XXiii. 
XXili. 
XXiil. 


144 
52, 85 

52 (bis), 173 
178 


98, 143, 309, 315 
150, 178 


47, 64, 143%, 229 
90, 123, 288, 320 
98 

150, 289 


23 
369 

102, 117 
148, 351* 
52, 71, 351* 
244 

51, 121, 336 


198 


Matt. xxiii. 16 
Matt. xxiii. 18 
Matt. xxiii. 23 
Matt. xxiii. 24 
Matt. xxiii. 25 
Matt. xxiii. 27 
Matt. xxiii. 28 
Matt. xxiii. 30 
Matt. xxiii. 31 
Matt. xxiii. 33 
Matt. xxiii. 34 
Matt. xxiii. 35 
Matt. xxiii. 37 
Matt. xxiii. 39 


Matt. xxiv. 2 

Matt. xxiv. 3 

Matt. xxiv. 4 

Matt. xxiv. 6 

Matt. xxiv. 12 
Matt. xxiv. 13 
Matt. xxiv. 15 
Matt. xxiv. 17 
Matt. xxiv. 18 
Matt. xxiv. 20 
Matt. xxiv. 21 
Matt. xxiv. 22 
Matt. xxiv. 27 
Matt. xxiv. 31 
Matt. xxiv. 32 
Matt. xxiv. 34 
Matt. xxiv. 35 
Matt. xxiv. 37 
Matt. xxiv. 38 
Matt. xxiv. 40 
Matt. xxiv. 45 
Matt. xxiv. 50 


Matt. xxv. 1 
Matt. xxv. 4 
Matt. xxv. 6 
Matt. xxv. 7 
Matt. xxv. 8 
Matt. xxv. 9 
Matt. xxv. 10 
Matt. xxv. 11 
Matt. xxv. 14 sq. 
Matt. xxv. 16 
Matt. xxv. 17 
Matt. xxv. 20 
Matt. xxv. 21 
Matt. xxv. 22 
Matt. xxv. 23 
Matt. xxv. 24 
Matt. xxv. 26 
Matt. xxv. 27 
Matt. xxv. 29 
Matt. xxv. 31 
Matt. xxv. 32 
Matt. xxv. 33 
Matt. xxv. 34 
Matt. xxv. 35 
Matt. xxv. 39 


N. Τὶ INDEX. 


11, 127, 288 

127, 288 

46, 217, 349, 364 
364 

163, 364 

13, 163, 304, 364 
304, 364 

50, 160, 224 


212%, 338, 355 
255, 315 
243 

243* 

69 

306 

48, 81 

54, 378 
334 

171 

212 

121 

131 

161*, 343* 
68 

230 

212 

131 

10, 295, 312 
103, 205 
91*, 270 
286, 342 


116, 320* 
116 
171 
116 
159 


113, 213, 218, 353, 354 


50 

197, 288, 376, 378 
288, 378 
216, 217* 
295 

37, 119 
37, 52 

365 

169 

46, 50, 261 
31 





Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


435 
xxv. 41 90 
ΧΧΥ͂. 42 sqq 369 
Xxvi. 1 277 
XxXvi. 2 205, 264 
xxvi. 3 98 
ΧΧΥῚ. 5 3892 
XXVi. 6 815 
xxvi. 8 309, 312 
XXVi. 9 33 
Xxvi. 10 33 
XXvi. ll 113 
XXvi. 12 266 
Xxvi. 16 268 
ΧΧΥΪ. 17 208, 240 
XXvi. 18 31,38 (dis), 131, 209, 340 
XXvVi. 22 248 
XXVi. 23 329 
XXVi. 24 217, 226, 345, 347 
XXvi. 25 248, 297 
XXVi. 26 45, 125, 200 
Xxvi. 28 69, 125, 206, 336 
XXvi. 32 265, 275 
Xxvi. 35 213 
XXVi. 36 230 
XXvi. 42 348*, 359 
XXvVi. 44 297 
XXVi. 45 96, 182, 361 
XXvVi. 46 297 
XXvi. 47 98 
XXvi. 48 108, 297 
XxXvi. 50 253* 
XXvi. 51 193 
xxvi. 52 64, 182 
XXvi. 53 16, 168, 249 
XXVi. 54 208 
Xxvi. δῦ 56 
XXvi. 58 70, 312 
XXvi. 59 214 (bis)* 
XXvVi. 60 808 
XXvVi. 62 165, 251* 
XXvVi. 63 147 
XXvi. 65 70 
XXvi. 66 170 
XXvi. 67 32 
XXvi. 68 309 
XXVi. 69 50, 85 
Xxvi. 71 143 
ΧΧΥΪ, 74 45 
Xxvi. 75 145 
Xxvii. 1 98, 244, 279 
XXvii. 2 6 
Xxvii. 3 98, 297 
XXVii. 4 57, 138 | 
XXvii. 6 57 
XXVii. 7 164 
XxVii. 12 51, 98, 188 
XXvii. 14 121 
XXvii. 15 186 
XXVii. 17 208, 315 
XXvii. 19 138, 315 
XXVii. 20 98, 238 


436 


Matt 
Matt 


. XXVii. 
. XXVii. 


Matt. xxvii. 
Matt. xxvii. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 
Matt. 


Mark i. 
Mark i. 
Mark i. 
‘Mark i. 
Mark i. 
Mark i. 


XXvii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVili. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXvii. 
XXvii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 
XXVii. 


CONG ® hw 


Mark i. 10 
Mark i. 12 
Mark i. 13 
Mark i. 14 
Mark i. 15 
Mark i, 22 
Mark i. 23 
Mark i. 24 
Mark i. 27 
Mark i. 31 
Mark i. 32 
Mark i. 33 
Mark i. 34 
Mark i. 39 
Mark i. 42 
Mark i. 43 
Mark i. 44 


XXViii. 
XXViii. 
XXViii. 
Xxviii. 
XXViii. 
XXViii. 
XXViii. 


N. T. INDEX. 


208 
149 
370 
118, 158 
138, 394 


146 
141, 297 
98 


173, 174, (bis) 


175 (bis) 


77, 152, 363 


27, 52 (bis), 275 
52, 142, 402 


29*, 68, 159 


298 


106, 147 


132 
295 

58 
280 
365 


6, 157, 277, 334* 


301 
289 
289, 311 
265 
174* 
811 
96*, 330 


138, 377, 394 


112, 132 
161 

56 (bis) 
313 

49 

311, 333* 
29 

52 

106, 402 


Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
' Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
| Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 
Mark ii. 





Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 
Mark iii. 


Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 





Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 
Mark iv. 


36 
57 
38 


109*, 194 
402 


402 
338 
276 
258, 358 
95, 311 


270 


102, 125, 277 (bis) 
30*, 45, 103* 
44, 95*, 331 


218 
128 
390 
388 
103* 


Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 
Mark vi. 


φ᾿ οὐ οὐ IAD OP Co τὸ 


i. 16 
i. 17 
i. 20 
i. 21 
i. 23 
i. 24 
i. 25 
i. 27 
i. 29 
i, 31 
i. 33 
i. 36 
i. 37 
i. 39 
i. 40 
i. 45 
i. 46 


48 
50 
52 
58 
56 


Mark vii. 2 
Mark vii. 4 
Mark vii. 5 


Mark vii. 


10 


Mark vii. 12 
Mark vii. 13 
Mark vii. 14 
Mark vii. 15 
Mark vii. 19 
Mark vii. 20 


mn 
μ᾿ 


N. T. INDEX. 


402 
367, 369 


69, 123, 214, 241 
157, 351 

297 

52 

301, 309*, 329 


46, 233, 261, 276 (bis) 


182 

19, 20, 99, 124, 340 
25, 342* 
142, 359 
144 
30*, 45 
859, 385 
384* 
271 

284 

55 

166, 304 
98, 100 
14, 193 
193 

46 

276 (bis) 
329 (bis) 
34 


144 
255 

132 

30*, 139*, 336 
30*, 40, 139 
17, 227, 231* 
106, 179 

264 

314 

337* 

336 

10, 45, 216, 360 


806. 





Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 
Mark vii. 


Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 
Mark viii. 


Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 
Mark ix. 


Mark x. 10 
Mark x. 11 
Mark x. 12 
Mark x. 15 


437 


77 

33, 362 
280 
152 
332 
401 
70, 83 


118, 130, 251, 255 
251, 255 
26%, 59 

275 

40*, 276% 
359% 

243 

94 

248, 254 
121, 366* 
93 

124 

41, 326 (bis) 
112, 331 
116, 229 


255 (bis) 

124 

359 

262 

253 

28 (ter), 237, 365 
149 

130 

112 

31 

140 

130*, 299*, 384 


161 (dis) 

143, 253, 315 (bis) 
46, 233 

182 

84 

329 

87, 356 

B55 

149, 163, 213, 229 
173, 174, 226 

360 

360 

24 

24 (bis), 113 


328, 334 
229 
177 
212 


438 


Mark x. 16 


Mark x. 
Mark x. 


Mark x. 20 
Mark x. 21 
Mark x. 22 
Mark x. 24 
Mark x. 28 
Mark x. 80 
Mark x. 31 
Mark x. 32 
Mark x. 33 
Mark x. 34 
Mark x. 85 
Mark x. 36 
Mark x. 38 
Mark x. 39 
Mark x. 40 
Mark x. 45 
Mark x. 49 
Mark x. 51 


Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 


Mark xi. 15 sqq 


Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 
Mark xi. 


Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 
Mark xii. 


N. T. INDEX. 


142 
315 

257 

192 

169* 

310 

175 

46 

204*, 360* 
360* 
112, 312 (bis) 
165 


64 
126, 229 
149 

66, 148 

66 

262 

188 

56, 276* 
149 


223 


376, 385* 


47 
159 

300 

102*, 293% 

163 

40 

123, 320 

362 

249, 336 

350 

237* 

12, 137, 314, 336* 
128, 301, 374 





Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 
Mark xiii. 


Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 


Mark xiv 


Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 
Mark xiv. 


Mark xy. 2 
Mark xv. 6 


315 (bis) 

212, 218, 338, 355 
315, 332 

57, 228, 255 

243 


223 
10, 118, 888, 336 
255 


48, 81*, 136 
54 


342, 366 
170, 255 


255 

363 

295, 309, 312 
168, 319 

113, 146 

46, 233 

24, 46, 238, 255 


217, 226, 345, 347 
206 


246 
275 

392 (bis) 
132 

213, 363 
136, 230. 
252%* 

51, 54, 255 
123, 135* 
297 


121, 251*, 332 
165, 166, 278 
50 


367 (ter)* 
45 
145*, 285 
124 
201 


Mark xv. 7 

Mark xv. 8 

Mark xv. 10 
Mark xv. 11 
Mark xv. 12 
Mark xv. 16 
Mark xv. 17 
Mark xv. 20 
Mark xv. 22 
Mark xv. 23 
Mark xv. 24 
Mark xv. 25 
Mark xv. 26 
Mark xv. 27 
Mark xv. 29 
Mark xv. 33 
Mark xv. 36 
Mark xv. 39 
Mark xv. 40 
Mark xv. 41 
Mark xv. 42 
Mark xv. 44 
Mark xv. 45 
Mark xv. 46 


Mark xv. 47 : 


Mark xvi. 1 
Mark xvi. 2 
Mark xvi. 5 
Mark xvi. 6 
Mark xvi. 8 
Mark xvi. 9 


Mark xvi. 16 
Mark xvi. 18 
Mark xvi. 19 


Luke i. 2 

Luke i. 3 

Luke i. 4 

Luke i. 5 

Luke i. 6 

Luke i. 8 

Luke i. 9 

Luke i. 10 
Luke i. 14 
Luke i. 15 
Luke i. 17 
Luke i. 19 
Luke i. 20 
Luke i. 21 
Luke i. 22 
Luke i. 23 
Luke i. 24 
Luke i. 25 
Luke i. 26 
Luke i. 27 
Luke i. 28 
Luke i. 29 
Luke i. 30 
Luke i. 31 
Luke i. 32 
Luke i. 34 
Luke i. 35 


N. T. INDEX. 


33, 43 
392 

33 

237 
105, 149 
128, 281 


103 
141, 154 

338, 363 

85, 210, 250 

82 

19, 94, 312 

296 

279% 

. 196, 246, 250 
86 

329 

94 


136 
101, 180 (bis) 
277 (bis) 
269 


24, 89, 180, 211, 212 
261, 329 

150 

10, 281, 311, 351, 369, 399 
130, 185, 264* 

107*, 312 

277 

40, 146 

7, 342 

6, 136, 326* 

17, 32, 136 


349 
89, 123, 206 





Luke i. 36 
Luke i. 37 
Luke i. 39 
Luke i. 41 
Luke i. 42 
Luke i. 43 
Luke i. 44 
Luke i. 48 
Luke i. 57 
Luke i. 58 
Luke i. 59 
Like i. 60 
Lake i. 62 
Luke i. 64 
Luke i. 66 
Luke i. 7 
Luke i. 73 


Luke i. 73 sq. 


Luke i. 75 
Luke i. 76 
Luke i. 77 
Luke i. 79 


Luke ii. 1 
Luke ii. 2 
Luke ii. 3 
Luke ii. 4 
Luke ii. 5 
Luke ii. 6 
Luke ii. 7 
Luke ii. 8 
Luke ii. 13 
Luke ii. 15 
Luke ii. 16 
Luke ii. 18 
Luke ii. 19 


-Luke ii. 20 


Luke ii. 21 
Luke ii. 22 
Luke ii. 22 
Luke ii. 24 
Luke ii. 25 
Luke ii. 26 
Luke ii. 27 
Luke ii. 28 
Luke ii. 32 
Luke ii. 33 
Luke ii. 34 
Luke ii. 35 
Luke ii. 36 
Luke ii. 41 
Luke ii. 42 
Luke ii. 43 
Luke ii. 44 
Luke ii. 45 
Luke ii. 46 
Luke ii. 48 
Luke ii. 49 
Luke ii. 50 


Luke iii. 2 
Luke iii. 5 
Luke iii. 7 


439 


15, 109, 120, 304 
121 


260, 277 

84*, 109, 121*, 128 
117 

115, 324, 327 

17, 32 

267, 277 

112 

312 

25, 130 

277 

17, 40 

185 

17 

39, 286 

151 265, 267*, 268 362 
18, 362 


188, 231, 232, 313, 350 
123, 270 

107* 

119 

50, 127%, 129, 312 
34 

117, 234, 364 

109 (bis) 

186 

18, 163 

18 

25 

206 

56, 277 

126, 129 

358 

108 

20 


150 
146 


440 


L nke iii. 8 


Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 


12 
13 
14 


Luke iii. 15 
Luke iii. 16 
Luke iii. 17 
Luke iii. 18 


Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 
Luke iii. 


19 
21 
23 


Luke iii. 24 


Luke iii 


Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 


Luke iv 


Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 
Luke iv. 


Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke v. 
Luke νυ. 
Luke v. 


Luke v. 36 sq. 


Luke vy. 
Luke v. 


. 29 


7 

10 
11 
. 14 
1ὅ 


86 


87 
38 


N. T. INDEX. 


869 ' Luke vi. 


261 


‘ Luke vi. 


108, 250, 254. 


108, 182, 280 
280 

362 

286 

63, 264, 277 
108 

8, 21 

8 


163, 172 
270 


161, 178 
808, 333* 
12, 336 
244, 397 
108 

330 

138, 377 
152 

312 

133 

56 (bis)* 
51, 124, 125, 301 
269 


108, 270, 277, 312 
144 

144, 300 

40 

32 

270 

285, 286 
160, 311 

277 

106, 108, 385 
322* 


108, 312, 329 
106, 108, 277, 313 
82, 171 

385* 

887 

21, 338 

21, 312 

95* 

400 

37, 93 

393 

108 


190 





Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 


Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 
Luke vi. 11 
Luke vi. 12 
Luke vi. 15 
Luke vi. 16 
Luke vi. 17 
Luke vi. 19 
Luke vi. 20 
Luke vi. 21 
Luke vi. 25 
Luke vi. 26 
Luke vi. 27 
Luke vi. 28 
Luke vi. 29 
Luke vi. 30 
Luke vi. 34 
Luke vi. 35 
Luke vi. 37 
Luke vi. 38 
Luke vi. 39 
Luke vi. 40 
Luke vi. 41 
Luke vi. 42 
Luke vi. 43 
Luke vi. 44 


εῷ Οὐ “ὦ σὺ να ὧδ τῷ "ὦ 


| Luke vi. 47 


Luke vi. 48 
Luke vi. 49 


Luke vii. 1 
Luke vii.'4 
Luke vii. 5 
Luke vii. 6 
Luke vii. 9 
Luke vii. 11 
Luke vii. 12 
Luke vii. 21 
Luke vii. 24 
Luke vii. 25 
Luke vii. 25 sq. 
Luke vii. 27 
Luke vii. 28 
Luke vii. 32 
Luke vii. 33 
Luke vii. 35 
Luke vii. 37 
Luke vii. 39 
Luke vii. 41 
Luke vii. 45 
Luke vii. 47 
Luke vii. 50 


Luke viii. 1 
Luke viii. 2 
Luke viii. 4 
Lake viii. 5 


277 

348 
108, 112, 126, 232 
112, 278 
277 

254 
108, 332 
249 

42, 254 
277, 312 
304 

94 

282 

136 
108, 116 
53 


60, 61,141 
146 

146 

177 (bis) 
158 

149 

223 

7, 89, 108 
369 

66 

245 

311 

117 (bis) 
108, 210, 351 
351 

38, 117, 120 


199, 898 
229 

34 

240, 351 

185, 369 

277 

109 (bis), 362 
263 


108, 277 
128, 313, 322* 
50 


102, 276 


Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 
Luke viii. 


6 

7 

8 

9 

12 
13 
14 
17 
18 
19 
20 
22 
24 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 


Luke ix. 3 


Luke ix. 9 
Luke ix. 1 
Luke ix. 1 
Luke ix. 1 
Luke ix. 1 


2 
3 
+ 
8 


Luke ix. 20 
Luke ix. 22 
Luke ix. 25 
Luke ix. 27 
Luke ix. 28 
Luke ix. 30 
T ake ix. 33 
Luke ix. 35 
Luke ix. 36 
Luke ix. 37 
Tuke ix. 38 
T.uke ix. 41 
Iwuke ix. 42 
Luke ix. 43 
Luke ix. 45 
Luke ix. 46 
Luke ix. 47 
Luke ix. 48 
Luke ix. 51 
Luke ix. 52 
Luke ix. 54 
Luke ix. 55 
Luke ix. 57 
Luke ix. 61 


Luke x 1 
Luke x. 3 


N. T. INDEX. 


68 
68 

30, 68 

254 

73, 356 

395 

340 

211, 229, 355 
349 

126 

316 

108, 126, 277 


173 
108, 161 


30, 271*, 367, 384, 385 
203 
130 
14, 128, 168, 220*, 221* 
139 
277 
388 
326 
112 
213 
139 
312 
103, 277 
166 
48, 64, 109, 286, 304 
” 


286 

| 152, 239% 
84, 97, 254, 329 
339 

804, 806 

36, 108, 270, 277 
146, 244 (bis) 
208 


163 


277% - 


179, 382, 378 
108, 129, 373 





Luke x. 4 


Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 
Luke x. 


Luke x. 36 


Luke x. 
Luke x. 


Luke x. 41 
Luke x. 42 


Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 


Luke xi. 


Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 


Luke xi.. 


Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 
Luke xi. 


Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
; Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
329 | Luke xii. 


Οὐ “ὦ σὺ οὐ bo 


mm τῷ 
a) 


441 


366 

65, 393 
388} 
130 

171 
918, 968 
185, 356 
“00, 149, 176 
228 

118 

87, 131 
283, 304 
264, 275 


898} 
83, 149, 189 


277 (bis), 363 
223 

48 

208, 211 
229, 251 
211, 333 

346 


377 

109, 277, 312 
108, 338* 
330 

330, 371 
112, 228 
175, 231 


264 


48, 98 


118, 121, 149 
178, 371 

182 

182 

24 


113 
355, 368 

61, 192 

255 

52, 121, 188*, 351 
- 310% 


442 


Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 


Luke xii. 


Luke xii. 


Luke xii. 


Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 
Luke xii. 


Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii, 
Luke xiii. 
Luke xiii. 


Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 
Luke xiv. 


N. T. INDEX. 
12 90* , Luke xiv. 82 
15 192, 264 
16 34 | Luke xv. 1 
17 251 | Luke xv. 4 
18 53 | Luke xv. 5 
19 66 | Luke xv. 6 — 
20 38, 135, 140, 149 | Luke xv. 7 
22 255 | Luke xv. 8 
23 127 | Luke xv. 9 
24 366 | Luke xv. 10 
26 947, 369 | Luke xv. 12 
28 49 | Luke xv. 14 
29 255, 369 | Luke xv. 15 
33 113, 366 | Luke xv. 16 
36 23, 63, 116, 145, 251, 255, | Luke xv. 20 
315, 316 | Luke xv. 23 
42 270, 363 | Luke xv. 24 
46 286 | Luke xv. 25 
47 82, 189 | Luke xv. 26 
48 135, 288 | Luke xv. 29 
49 215, 246 | Luke xv. 32 
50 230 
51 874 | Luke xvi. 1 
52 811 337 | Luke xvi. 2 
53 838 | Luke xvi. 8 
54 sq. 204 | Luke xvi. 4 
57 113 | Luke xvi. 5 
58 211, 232, 368 | Luke xvi. 8 
59 230 | Luke xvi. 9 
Luke xvi. 11 
2 339 | Luke xvi. 11 sq. 
4 109, 288, 339, 380 | Luke xvi. 12 
7 857 | Luke xvi. 13 
8 146, 230 | Luke xvi. 15 
9 393, 396 | Luke xvi. 16 
11 851 | Luke xvi. 19 
13 34 | Luke xvi. 20 
17 841 | Lnke xvi. 21 
19 119, 125, 150 | Luke xvi. 22 
23 248 | Luke xvi. 23 
25 63 | Luke xvi. 24 
28 836*, 223 | Luke xvi. 25 
82 Luke xvi. 26 
34 112 | Luke xvi. 29 
35 36, 231 (bis)* | Luke xvi. 31 
1 277, 312 | Luke xvii. 1 
3 249 | Luke xvii. 2 
4 142, 160 | Luke xvii. 3 
5 127 | Luke xvii. 4 
8 23 | Luke xvii. 6 
10 28, 40, 67, 234 | Luke xvii. 7 
12 866 | Luke xvii. 8 
14 251 | Luke xvii. 9 
15 58 | Luke xvii. 11 
18 82, 272 | Luke xvii. 12 
20 55 | Luke xvii. 14 
23 101 | Luke xvii. 16 
24 167 | Luke xvii. 20 
26 100, 848 | Luke xvii. 22 
27 848 | Luke xvii. 24 
29 \ 315 | Luke xvii. 25 
31 830 | Luke xvii. 27 





181 


813 
280 
116 
98, 193 
848, 860 
230 
98, 193 
172, 204 


166 
218, 254 (bis) 
ὺ 119 

58 


307 

56, 142, 203 
149 

134 

116 

161, 335 
113 

388 


277 (bis) 
107*, 170 


269 
133, 241, 360* 
54 


54 
52, 228 (bis)* 
40, 67 


40, 58, 66, 230, 251* 


248 (bis)* 
108, 277 
815 

277° 


Luke xix. 2 

Luke xix. 3 

Luke xix. 4 

Luke xix. 7 

Luke xix. 8 

Luke xix. 9 

Luke xix. 11 
Luke xix. 14 
Luke xix. 15 
Luke xix. 16 
Luke xix. 22 
Luke xix. 23 
Luke xix. 29 
Luke xix. 35 
Luke xix. 36 
Luke xix. 37 
Luke xix. 40 
Luke xix. 42 
Luke xix. 43 
Luke xix. 44 
Luke xix. 45 
Luke xix. 47 
Luke xix. 48 


Luke xx. 
Luke xx. 
Luke xx. 4 
Luke xx. 7 
Luke xx. 9 
Luke xx. 10 


no — 


N. Τὶ INDEX, 


Luke xvii. 29 9 
Luke xvii. 31 54, 283 
Luke xvii. 34 102, 205 
Luke xvii. 35 102 (015), 338 
Luke xviii. 1 266 
Luke xviii. 2 351, 369 
Luke xvili. 4 346 
Luke xviii. 6 161 
Luke xviii. 7 214 
Luke xviii. 8 247 
Luke xviii. 9 93, 175, 295 
Luke xviii. 10 47 
Luke xviii. 11 34, 140 
Luke xviii. 12 23, 159 
Luke xviii. 18 140, 362, 369 
Luke xviii. 14 104, 339 
Luke xviii. 20 257 
Luke xviii. 21 192 
Luke xviii. 23 310 
Luke xviii. 28 118* 
~ Luke xviii. 29 218 
Luke xviii. 30 30 
Luke xviii. 31 178* 
Luke xviii. 32 64 
Luke xviii. 32 sqq. 289 
Luke xvili. 34 189, 362 
Luke xviii. 35 277 (bis) 
Luke xvili. 36 218, 254 (bis) 
Luke xviii. 39 108 
Luke xviii. 40 . 275, 815 
Luke xviii. 41 238 


108*, 289, 382 
289, 325, 377 
82, 171, 397 
339%* 

14 

108 

300 

172 

46, 115, 233, 277 
33 


5] 
9216 

15, 22, 277 

32 

329 

22, 180, 286, 340*, 374 
61*, 222 

149, 215, 320, 396* 
149, 361 

37, 337 


98, 100° 


96 
84, 61*, 97, 255 


277 

309, 314 

342 

350 

47 

159, 234, 237 





Luke xx. 11 
Luke xx. 12 
Luke xx. 14 
Luke xx. 15 
Luke xx. 16 
Luke xx. 19 
Luke xx. 20 
Luke xx. 22 
Luke xx. 24 
Luke xx. 25 
Luke xx. 26 
Luke xx. 27 
Luke xx. 33 
Luke xx. 35 
Luke xx. 36 
Luke xx. 37 
Luke xx. 38 
Luke xx, 40 
Luke xx. 46 
Luke xx. 47 


Luke xxi. 6 

Luke xxi. 8 

Luke xxi. 14 
Luke xxi. 16 
Luke xxi. 18 
Luke xxi. 21 
Luke xxi. 22 
Luke xxi. 24 
Luke xxi. 25 
Luke xxi. 30 
Luke xxi. 33 
Luke xxi. 34 
Luke xxi. 36 
Luke xxi. 37 


Luke xxii. 2 
Luke xxii. 3 
Luke xxii. 4 
Luke xxii. 5 
Luke xxii. 6 
Luke xxii. 9 
Luke xxii. 10 
Luke xxii. 11 
Luke xxii. 12 
Luke xxii. 14 
Luke xxii. 15 
Luke xxii. 16 


Luke xxii. 17 sqq. 


Luke xxii. 18 
Luke xxii. 19 
Luke xxii. 20 
Luke xxii. 22 
Luke xxii. 23 
Luke xxii, 24 
Luke xxii. 26 
Luke xxii. 30 
Luke xxii. 31 
Luke xxii. 32 
Luke xxii. 33 
Luke xxii. 34 


Luke xxii. 85. 


98, 160, 244, 274 
2 


443 


300 
300 
163 
149 
248 
362 


79 
391 

372 

160 
795, 355 
163 

368 

369 

12, 336* 
162 

350 
375* 

79 


337, 355, 380*, 381 


243 

329, 349 

159 

212 

42 

120, 268 

231, 311, 320 
23 

é 145 
212 (bis) 

54 


47 
22, 332 


126 
184, 265, 275 
212, 231 

211 

159, 231 

157 

206 

365 

97, 254 

84, 97, 250 
394 


58, 60, 211, 234 


399% 
36 
342 


2° 2*, 214, 230, 231, 232, 


355 
8320 


444 


Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 
Luke xxii. 


Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
’ Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxiii. 


Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 


Luke xxiv. 


"» 


N. T. INDEX. 


144 


95*, 248, 296 © 


85 
315 
312 
159 
145 
809 

116 
214 
214 


130 
274 
304 
$35, 374 
166* 
312 
108 
149, 331 


309*, 313 
- 804 


313, 337 
286, 392 
329 
361 


116. 


93 
313 


313, 329, 351 


23, 26*, 171, 284 


76, 277 


126, 172 


136, 153, 312 | 


277 
161, 269 
20, 136, 290 
82, 180 


: 108, 134%, 144, 331* 
108, 140, 152, 174, 269, 


286 


84, 342, 374 


Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
| Luke xxiv. 
| Luke xxiv. 
- Luke xxiv. 
Luke xxiv. 
| Luke xxiv. 
| Luke xxiv. 


John i. 1 
John i. 3 
John i. 4 
| John i. ὃ 
| John i. 6 
John i. 8 

| John i. 10 
| John i. 11 
John i 12 
| John i. 13 
| John i. 15 
| John i. 16 
John i. 18 
John i. 19 
John i. 20 
John i, 21 
John i. 22 
John i. 25 
John i. 26 
John i. 27 
' John i. 28 
John i. 29 
John i. 30 
| John i. 32 
John i. 33 
John i. 34 
John i. 35 
John i. 36 
John i. 40 
John i. 41 
John i. 42 
John i. 43 
John i. 44 
John i. 45 
John i. 46 
John i. 47 
John i. 48 
John i. 49 
John i. 50 
Jobn i. 51 
John i. 52 


John ii. 1 
John ii. 2 
John ii. 4 
5 
6 








John ii. 
John ii. 


79, 134, 318, 374* 
2 


70, 108 


270 
45, 277 (bis) 
108 


30 
148, 397 
277 
311 


124*, 340 
121, 399 

124 

369 

136 

124, 241 

369, 398 

118, 369 

174, 295 

282, 366 


82, 61*, 84, 245, 272, 377* 


321, 363 
306, 333 


125, 131, 388 
124, 369, 399 


124 
131 


124, 347*, 366, 367 


48, 364 
240 
311 
139 


32, 84, 204, 377 


338, 382 


124, 283, 338, 382 
124 


126 
139 


39, 290, 364, 402 
167 


88, 84, 117, 128, 402 
128, 200, 364 


196 
17, 324, 327 
402 

62, 290, 402 
139, 402 


265, 341, 402 


124, 402 
402 
63 


157 ~ 


126 


138, 203, 364, 394 
228 


312, 332 


John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 


John ii.. 


John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 
John ii. 


John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 
John iii. 


John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
- John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iv. 


John iv. 


John iv. 
John iv. 


John iv. 


John iv. 
John iy. 
John iy. 
John iv. 
John iv. 
John iy. 


9 

1k 
12 
14 
15 
17 
18 
19 
20 
22 
23 
24 
25 


22 
23 sq. 


39 


47 sqq. 


54 


N. T. INDEX. 


14, 98, 100* 
14, 18 

364 

45 

227 
34, 186 (bis) 
174, 285 
118, 174 


108, 112, 175, 275 


240 


136 
248 
403 


255, 369. 


369 

131, 369 
346, 369 
121, 174 (bis) 
121, 174, 244 
174 (bis), 549 
105, 290 

369 

811 

351 

350 

184 

327 

329 

338 


285 (bis) 

56, 306, 399 
66 

233 

66 

66 

368 

126, 199 
159, 213, 285 
388, 389 


172, 391 


285, 364 
315 (dis) 
70, 72, 153 


158, 173, 342, 392* 


120%, 364 





John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John ν. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John νυ. 
John y. 
John v. 
John v. 
John νυ. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John νυ. 
John νυ. 
John v. 
John vy. 
John vy. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 
John v. 


John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 
John vi. 


448 


82, 93 

329 

247 

229, 310*, 331 
102 (bis)*, 306 
245 


119 

229, 350 
45, 239* 
403 

173 

58, 58, 166 
53, 166, 403 
364 (dis) 
350 

403 


91*, 94, 132, 168, 199 


166, 367 
104 
124: 
113, 376 
382 
176, 296 
173 (bis) 


174, 208, 346, 347 


400 

130 

56, 88* 
398 

240 

282 

363 
125, 179 
125, 284 
398 

34 

301 
283*, 375* 
293 


862 

122, 211, 212 
122, 380 

132 

297 

364 

167, 169, 364 
372 


125, 159, 290, 297 


125, 297, 364 


N. T. INDEX. 


446 

John vi. 53 113 
John vi. 57 362 
John vi. 58 125 
John vi. 62 105, 396* 
John vi. 63 124, 402 
John vi. 64 296 
John vi. 67 248 
John vi. 69 124* 
John vi. 71 38 
John vii. 8 54 
John vii. 4 279*, 290, 330 
John vii. 8 38, 204 
John vii. 10 808 
John vii. 12 102, 365 
John vii. 16 sqq. 403 
John vii. 17 82, 250 
John vii. 18 118, 306 
John vii. 19 199 (bis) 
John vii. 22 199, 341, 372 
John vii. 23 240 
John vii. 27 377 
John vii. 30 66, 362 
John vii. 31 287 
John vii. 34 50*, 131 
John vii. 35 858* 
John vii. 36 50*, 131 
John vii. 38 67, 380 
John vii. 39 285 (bis) 
John vii. 40 159, 166* 
John vii. 41 370 
John vii. 42 247 
John vii. 44 362 
John vii. 48 842 
John vii. 49 130 
John vii. 51 134* 
John vii. 52 204, 290 
John viii. 7 800 
John viii. 9 80, 374 
John viii. 12 124, 212, 214, 314 
John viii. 14 204 
John viii. 15 364 
John viii. 16 364 
John viii. 17 864 
John viii. 18 110, 124 
John viii. 19 226 
John viii. 25 253*, 388, 389 
John viii. 30 815 
John viii. 31 173 
John viii. 36 223 
John viii. 39 224*, 226 
John viii. 40 166, 196, 281, 396 
John viii. 44 7, 106*, 118, 120, 327, 375 
John viii. 49 115, 362 
John viii. 51 214 
John viii. 52 214 
John viii. 54 127, 376 
John viii. 55 170* 
John viii. 56 51*, 239* 
John ix. 2 239* 
John ix. 3 77, 241 





John ix. 


John ix. 


John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 
John x. 


John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 
John xi. 


4 58, 231 
6 180*, 344, 388 
«ἡ 128 
.8 124 

10 63 

11 245, 344 

13 400 

14 63 

15 180, 344 

17 63 (bis), 388 

19 124, 247, 376 

20 124 
. 21 63 (bis), 112 
. 22 88, 224, 270 
. 25 250, 254 
. 26 63 

30 9, 63 (bis 
. 82 9, 63 (bis 
. 83 217, 226 
. 36 229, 395 
. 87 64 

41 226, 396 
1 120 
3 118, 166, 401 
4 118, 205 
5 205, 213 
6 254 
7 124 
12 163, 301, 351, 401 
12 sqq. 205 
14 124 
16 53, 167 
18 202*, 205 
22 361 
27 126, 167 
28 54, 211, 212 (bis)*, 214 
29 84, 142, 389 
82 205 
34 245 
35 120, 348* 
86 124, 245, 272*, 377, 385, 390 
37 346 
38 174 
39 182 

1 17, 312 

8 105 

6 365 

7 397 

8 247 

11 37* 

15 390* 

18 153 

19 17, 95 

20 56 

21 50, 224 

25 124 

26 212 

30 199 

82 17, 50, 105, 224 

38 336 

41 139 


John xi. 47 
John xi. 49 
John xi. 56 
John xi. 57 


John xii. 1 

John xii. 3 

John xii. 5 

John xii. 9 

John xii. 11 
John xii. 12 
John xii. 13 
John xii. 15 
John xii. 16 
John xii. 18 
John xii. 19 
John xii. 20 
Johh xii. 21 
John xii. 22 
John xii. 36 
John xii. 38 
John xii. 40 
John xii. 44 
John xii. 46 
John xii. 47 
John xii. 48 
John xii. 49 
John xii. 5¢ 


John xiii. 1 

John xiii. 2 

John xiii. 3 

John xiii. 6 

John xiii. 8 

John xiii. 9 

John xiii. 10 
John xiii. 11 
John xiii. 13 
John xiii. 14 
John xiii. 15 
John xiii. 18 
John xiii. 19 
John xiii. 20 
John xiii. 24 
John xiii. 27 
John xiii. 28 
John xiii. 29 
John xiii. 31 
John xiii. 33 
John xiii. 35 
John xiii. 38 


John xiv. 2 
John xiv. 8 
John xiv. 6 
John xiv. 7 
John xiv. 9 


John xiv. 11: 


John xiv. 12 
John xiv. 19 
John xiv. 21 
John xiv. 22 
John xiv. 27 


N. T. INDEX. 


38*, 209% | 
85 


218 
46, 224, 236 


153 

163 

134, 393* 
91*, 130 
388 

91*, 130, 296 
320*, 397 
338 

178, 337 
130, 303 
403 

234 

17 

126 

174 

174 

211; 368 
356 

122 

167 

306 

199, 255 
132 


293% 

46, 233, 238 
199, 329 
205, 388 


122, 369 (bis)* 
122 

151 

388 

199, 362 

122, 241 

265 

72 

| 218 
$39, 397, 400 
377 

46 

198" 


362 | 
| John xvii. 23 


87 
214, 230 


204 
58, 204 (bis) 
124 

224 

186, 245 
187, 393 
204, 363 
38*, 373 
37, 124 


358 | 
93, 398 | 





John xiv. 28 
John xiv. 29 
John xiv. 30 


John xv. 1 
John xv. 2 
John xy. 5 
John xy. 
John xy. 


6 
| 7 
_ John xv. 8 
9 


John xy. 

John xv. 10 
John xy. 13 
John xv. 16 
John xy. 18 
John xv. 20 
John xy. 21 
John xv. 22 
John xv. 24 
John xv. 25 
John xv. 27 


John xvi. 13 


John xvi. 13 sq. 
Ἐ5. τ. 


John xvi. 

John xvi. 16 
John xvi. 17 
John xvi. 19 
John xvi. 20 


John xvi. 20 sq. 


John xvi. 21 
John xvi. 23 
John xvi. 25 
John xvi. 28 
John xvi. 32 


John xvii. 2 
John xvii. 8 
John xvii. 4 
John xvii. 5 
John xvii. 6 
John xvii. 7 
John xvii. 8 
John xvii. 9 
John xvii. 11 
John xvii. 14 
John xvii. 15 
John xvii. 19 
John xvii. 22 


John xvii. 24 
John xvii. 26 


John xviii. 1 
John xviii. 2 
John xviii. 5 
John xviii. 9 


| John xviii. 11 
| John xviii. 12 
| John xviii. 13 


John xviii. 15 
John xviii. 17 
John xviii. 22 


447 


204, 995» 
266 
241 


124 (bis}, 125 
142*, 380* 
124, 382 


106*, 199, 202* 


72 


239* 
46 (dis), 238 
84 


58, 285 

149 

48, 226*, 396 
43*, 226*, 396 
241 

364 


204*, 229 
205 

205 

38*, 205, 373* 
38*, 132, 158 
205 

60, 150 

205 

328 

72 

240 

204 

240 


36*, 106, 122, 234, 380 
90, 235 (bis), 240 


199 
265, 286 
199 (ter) 

43, 126, 199 

199 

87, 199, 287 

286, 362 
199 


448 


John xviii. 24 
John xviii. 26 
John xviii. 30 
John xviii. 33 
John xviii. 34 
John xviii. 37 
John xviii. 39 
John xviii. 40 


John xix. 2 

John xix. 8 

John xix. 5 

John xix. 6 

John xix. 9 

John xix. 10 
John xix. 11 
John xix. 12 
John xix, 14 
John xix. 16 
John xix. 17 
John xix. 23 
John xix. 24 
John xix. 25 
John xix. 26 
John xix. 27 
John xix. 28 
Jobn xix. 31 
John xix. 32 
John xix. 36 
John xix. 41 


John xx. 3 
John xx. 4 
John xx. 4 564. 
John xx. 8 
John xx. 12 
John xx. 16 
John xx. 17 
John xx. 18 
John xx. 19 
John xx. 20 
John xx. 23 
John xx. 26 
John xx. 27 
John xx. 99 
John xx. 30 


John xxi. 3 
John xxi. 4 
John xxi. 6 
John xxi. 8 
John xxi. 10 
John xxi. 12 
John xxi. 18 
John xxi. 19 
John xxi. 20 
John xxi. 21 
John xxi. 22 
John xxi. 23 
John xxi. 24 


Acts i. 1 
Acts i. 2 


N. T. INDEX. 


200 


105 
224 

124 

114 

132, 167, 249* 
208, 240 

352, 392 


149 
45 

139 

398* 

199 

398 

296 

112 

139 

264 

112, 129, 283 
82, 120 
163, 194 

20 

139 

139 

390 

58, 126, 390 
122 

13 

329 


122, 126 

27, 32, 83, 122 
196 

122 


204 (bis), 210* 
332 

325 

14, 153 

159, 286 
388 

50 

255 

338 

388, 394 
31, 138, 231 
138, 231 

99 


140, 286, 365, 374 
10, 388* 





Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 
Acts i. 


Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 
Acts ii. 


Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 
Acts iii. 


_ 49 
166, 349, 385 
104*, 182 
44, 248 


390* 
287, 374 
8 

117 


338 
56, 312 

134* 

261 

324 

9, 181, 301 

7, 124 

301 

218, 254 (bis) 
68, 159, 278 

68 

278 

9, 286, 306, 326 
40, 182, 399 


171* 333, 368 
63*, 360 

394 

332, 378 

9 


216 


51, 118, 270, 307 


104*, 283, 365*, 366 


τς 984, 264 
116, 188, 286, 8368 


Acts iii. 23 
Acts iii. 24 
Acts iii. 25 
Acts iii. 26 


Acts iv. 1 
Acts iv. 3 
Acts iv. 5 
Acts iv. 7 
Acts iv. 9 


Acts iv. 10 sq. 


Acts iv. 11 
Acts iv. 12 
Acts iv. 13 
Acts iv. 16 
Acts iv. 17 
Acts iv. 18 
Acts iv. 19 
Acts iv. 20 
Acts iv. 21 
Acts iv. 22 
Acts iv. 25 
Acts iv. 27 
Acts iv. 29 
Acts iv. 82 
Acts iv. 33 
Acts iv. 35 
Acts iv. 36 


Acts v. 1 

Acts v. 2 

Acts v. 4 

Acts v. 7 

Acts v. 9 

Acts v. 10 
Acts v. 12 
Acts ν. 14 
Acts v. 15 
Acts v. 16 
Acts v. 17 
Acts v. 18 
Acts v. 19 
Acts v. 20 
Acts v. 21 
Acts v. 23 
Acts v. 24 
Acts v. 25 
Acts v. 26 
Acts v. 27 
Acts v. 28 
Acts v. 29 
Acts v. 31 
Acts v. 32 
Acts v. 35 
Acts v. 36 
Acts v. 88 
Acts v. 39 
Acts v. 41 


Acts vi. 1 
Acts vi. 2 
Acts vi. 4 
Acts vi. 5 


N. T. INDEX, 


278 
364 
124, 286 
264 


315 

329 

106*, 277 
$29, 330, 342 
310*, 330 
104*, 330 


208, 209, 365 
54, 184, 337 
263, 366 

180 


163, 168, 338 
183, 357 

126, 336 

7, 264 

121, 131* 
360, 387 

45, 47, 216 
129, 152, 326* 


8, 11 
12, 159% 

172, 329, 356, 358 
277, 351, 361 

358 

304, 340 

16 

173 

360* 

130, 283 


23 
329 (bis) 
63 


162 

193, 276 

365, 378 

97, 254 

329 (bis) 
242*, 377, 384 
329 (bis) 

58, 184, 337 
127* 

261 

155 

118, 628, 337*, 388 
114, 274, 283 
210, 220 

220 

163 


79*, 82, 178 
57 





Acts vi. 6 
Acts vi. 9 
Acts vi. 11 
Acts vi. 13 
Acts vi. 14 
Acts vi. 15 


Acts vii. 1 
Acts Vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 
Acts vii. 10 
Acts vii. 11 
Acts vii. 12 
Acts vii. 16 
Acts vii. 17 
Acts vii. 19 
Acts vii. 20 
Acts vii. 21 
Acts vii. 22 
Acts vii. 23 
Acts vii. 24 
Acts vii. 25 
Acts vii. 26 
Acts vii. 27 
Acts vii. 28 
Acts vii. 30 
Acts vii. 32 
Acts vii. 33 
Acts vii. 34 
Acts vii. 35 
Acts vii. 37 
Acts vii. 38 
Acts vii. 39 
Acts vii. 40 
Acts vii. 41 
Acts vii. 42 
Acts vii. 43 
Acts vii. 44 
Acts vii. 45 
Acts vii. 47 
Acts vii. 48 
Acts vii. 51 
Acts vii. 53 
Acts vii. 56 
Acts vii. 58 
Acts vii. 60 


anor 


Acts viii. 1 
Acts viii. 2 
Acts viii. 5 
Acts viii. 6 
Acts viii. 7 
Acts viii. 9 


Acts viii. 10 
Acts viii. 11 
Acts viii. 13 
Acts viii. 14 
Acts viii. 15 
Acts viii. 16 
Acts viii. 17 
Acts viii. 19 


449 


182, 133 
342 

19, 301 
100 

301 

56 


249 

382 (bis), 342 
351 

229 

357 

15, 40 

34, 87 

303, 332 

69, 94, 286, 329 
34, 54, 286 
104, 264, 270 
179, 283 

40, 150, 194 


40, 166, 209, 313 
12, 19, 93, 182 


69, 286 
1€ (bis), 34 (bis) 
389 


170*, 362 
151 
63 
194 
57 


312 

193* 

78, 106 

264 

133* 

44, 48, 114, 274 
125, 129 

48*, 186 


450 


Acts viii. 21 
Acts vili. 22 
Acts viii. 23 
Acts viii. 24 
Acts viii. 26 
Acts Viii. 27 
Acts viii. 28 
Acts viii. 30 
Acts Vili. 31 
Acts Vili. 34 
Acts viii. 35 
Acts viii. 38 
Acts viii. 39 
Acts viii. 40 


Acts ix. 1 

Acts ix. 2 

Acts ix. 8 

Acts ix. 4 

Acts ix. 6 

Acts ix. 7 

Acts ix. 8 

Acts ix. 9 

Acts ix. 12 
Acts ix. 13 
Acts ix. 15 
Acts ix. 20 
Acts ix. 21 
Acts ix. 22 
Acts ix. 24 
Acts ix. 26 
Acts ix. 27 
Acts ix. 31 
Acts ix. 32 
Acts ix. 33 
Acts ix. 34 
Acts ix. 35 
Acts ix. 36 
Acts ix. 37 
Acts ix. 38 
Acts ix. 39 
Acts ix. 40 
Acts ix. 42 
Acts ix. 43 


Acts x. 1 

Acts x. 2 

Acts x. 10 
Acts x. 1l 
Acts x. 18 
Acts x. 14 
Acts x. 15 
Acts x. 17 
Acts x. 18 
Acts x. 22 
Acts x. 24 
Acts x. 25 
Acts x. 81 
Acts x. 833 
Acts x. 34 
Acts x. 36 
Acts x. 37 
Acts x. 39 


N. T. INDE! | 


180 © 


Acts x. 40 


256, 322* | Acts x. 41 


301, 333 
287 


Acts x. 43 
Acts x. 45 


104*, 314 Acts x. 47 


296 


312 | Acts xi. 7 
247, 301 | Acts xi. 11 


222, 223, 124, 254, 370 


54 
266, 333 


167* 

163, 224, 233 
34*, 277 
6, 112, 166, 302*, 399% 
47, 50 
166, 351 
63 (bis) 
351, 366 
214 

149, 167 
268 

376 

124, 309 
9, 69, 124 
233 

351 

160 

184, 335 
18, 277 
337* 

47, 146 
16, 18, 283 


106* 

29, 63, 196 
138 

121 

29, 138 

254, 338, 362 





82, 300, 326* | 
398 
153*, 288 
79%, 153, 335 | 
40, 58, 283, 286, 342. 


Acts xi. 12 
Acts xi. 14 
Acts xi. 15 
Acts xi. 17 
Acts xi. 18 
Acts xi. 21 
Acts xi. 22 
Acts xi. 26 
Acts xi. 28 
Acts xi. 29 
Acts xi. 30 


Acts xii. 1 
Acts xii. 2 
Acts xii. 3 
Acts xii. 4 
Acts xii. 6 
Acts xii. 7 

Acts xii. 10 
Acts xii. 11 
Acts xii. 14 
Acts xii. 16 
Acts xii. 18 
Acts xii. 19 
Acts xii. 20 
Acts xii. 21 
Acts xii. 24 


Acts xiii. 2 

Acts xiii. 3 

Acts xiii. 9 

Acts xiii. 10 
Acts xiii. 11 
Acts xiii. 13 
Acts xiii. 16 
Acts xiii. 18 
Acts xiii. 19 
Acts xiii. 21 
Acts xiii. 22 
Acts xiii. 24 
Acts xiii, 25 
Acts xiii. 26 
Acts xiii. 27 
Acts xiii. 29 
Acts xiii. 32 
Acts xiii. 36 
Acts xiii. 39 
Acts xiii. 40 
Acts xiii. 41 
Acts xili. 43 
Acts xiii. 45 
Acts xiii. 46 
Acts xiii. 47 
ACis xiii. 48 


2 
174, 226*, 364* 
371 

183 

327 

278 

12, 41, 81, 259, 283 
34, 131 

182 


3 
275, 332, 351 
107, 340 
106* 
48 


152, 342 
142 
395 
89, 140, 258* 


158, 329 

150, 376 

401 

287, 322*, 342 
243 

140, 175, 214 (bis) 
98, 100 

314 

113 

150, 194, 268 
26 


Acts xiv. 1 
Acts xiv. 3 
Acts xiv. 5 
Acts xiv. 6 
Acts xiv. 8 
Acts xiv. 9 
Acts xiv. 10 
Acts xiv. 12 
Acts xiv. 16 
Acts xiv. 17 
Acts xiv. 18 
Acts xiv. 19 
Acts xiv. 21 
Acts xiv. 22 
Acts xiv. 26 
Acts xiv. 27 


Acts xv. 1 
Acts xv. 2 
Acts xy. 4 
Acts xv. 5 
Acts xv. 6 
Acts xv. 7 
Acts xv. 8 
Acts xv. 10 
Acts xv. 12 
Acts xv. 17 
Acts xv. 20 
Acts xv. 22 


Acts xv. 22 sq. 


Acts xv. 23 
Acts xv. 24 
Acts xv. 25 
Acts xv. 28 
Acts xv. 29 
Acts xv. 33 
Acts xv. 36 
Acts xv. 37 
Acts xv. 38 


Acts xvi. 3 

Acts xvi. 4 

Acts xvi. 9 

Acts xvi. 11 
Acts xvi. 12 
Acts xvi. 14 
Acts xvi. 15 
Acts xvi. 16 
Acts xvi. 19 
Acts xvi. 21 
Acts xvi. 22 
Acts xvi. 24 
Acts xvi. 26 
Acts xvi. 27 
Acts xvi. 31 
Acts x'7i. 32 
Acts xvi. 33 
Acts xvi. 34 
Acts xvi. 36 
Acts xvi. 37 


Acts xvii. 2 
Acts xvii. 3 


N. T. INDEX. 


244, 277 
182 

260 

19 

19, 283 
268, 283 
54, 94 
14 

184 

66, 112 
269 

60 

19, 342 
385 
313, 378 
63 


183* 

98 

98 

324 

98 

159 

363 

261, 367, 388 (bis) 
130 


234, 280, 282, 338* 
101, 270 

20, 53*, 98, 112, 305 
299 

91, 100, 103, 394 
273 

305 

27*, 349 

300, 327 

146 

282, 377 


33 
306, 326, 377*, 399 


305 

32 (bis), 201 
28, 328 
48, 63 

297 

174 

95 

95, 322* 
73, 173, 300 
43, 184 

40, 369 


23, 133* 
385 





Acts xvii. 4 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 
Acts xvii. 10 
Acts xvii. 11 
Acts xvii. 14 
Acts xvii. 15 
Acts xvii. 18 
Acts xvii. 20 
Acts xvii. 21 
Acts xvii. 27 
Acts xvii. 28 
Acts xvii. 30 
Acts xvii. 31 
Acts xvii. 32 
Acts xvii. 33 


“Ἢ σὺ or 


Acts xviii. 2 
Acts xviii. 8 
Acts xviii. 6 
Acts xviii. 8 
Acts xviii. 9 
Acts xviii. 16 
Acts xviii. 12 
Acts xviii. 14 
Acts xviii. 17 
Acts xviii. 21 
Acts xviii. 23 
Acts xViii. 24 
Acts xviii. 25 
Acts xviii. 28 


Acts xix. 1 

Acts xix. 2 

Acts xix. 4 

Acts xix. 7 

Acts xix. 8 

Acts xix. 11 
Acts xix. 16 
Acts xix. 21 
Acts xix. 22 
Acts xix. 23 
Acts xix. 26 
Acts xix. 27 
Acts xix. 30 
Acts xix. 32 
Acts xix. 33 
Acts xix. 34 
Acts xix. 35 
Acts xix. 36 
Acts xix. 40 


Acts xx. 2 
Acts xx. 3 
Acts xx. 4 
Acts xx. 5 
Acts xx. 6 
Acts xx. 7 
Acts xx. 9 
Acts xx. 11 
Acts xx. 13 
Acts xx. 14 


451 


361 

161 

306, 351 

319 

115, 283 

96, 254 

357% 

43, 44 

99, 102, 254 
218, 254 

34, 83 

42, 256, 351, 371 
101, 156, 401 
370 

286 

53 

357 


89 

33, 152 
76, 138 
173 
399 
270 
169 
35, 140, 226 
160 
397 
146 

21 

313 
45, 177 


21, 277 

11, 248, 369 
366 (bis), 389 
120% 

150 (bis)* 
93, 182 

54, 147 

329 

144, 334 

7 


123*, 370* 
151, 158*, 350* 
315 

15, 313 

172 

298 

18, 82, 355 
147, 299 


177, 181, 188, 230, 400* 


106 

146, 268*, 298, 341 
364 

364 

10 

29% 

322* 

10, 306 

194, 313 

332 


452 

Acts xx. 16 224, 333 
Acts xx. 18 120*, 315, 342 
Acts xx. 19 93 
Acts xx. 20 270 
Acts xx. 22 204 
Acts xx. 23 147 
Acts xx. 24 244 
Acts xx. 26 158 
Acts xx. 27 270 
Acts xx. 30 113, 172, 270 
Acts xx. 34 401* 
Acts xx. 38 286 
Acts xxi. 1 21, 277 
Acts xxi. 2 206 
Acts xxi. 3 190* 
Acts xxi. 4 273 
Acts xxi. 5 89, 277 
Acts xxi. 6 118 
Acts xxi. 8 82, 95 
Acts xxi. 10 816 
Acts xxi. 11 116, 163 
Acts xxi. 12 270 
Acts xxi. 13 834 
Acts xxi. 16 158, 159, 228, 284*, 339 
Acts xxi. 17 815 
Acts xxi. 19 287, 335 
Acts xxi. 20 804 
Acts xxi. 21 184*, 273 
Acts xxi. 22 53 
Acts xxi. 23 312, 336 
Acts xxi, 24 234*, 287, 337 
Acts xxi. 25 101, 192, 270 
Acts xxi. 26 94, 231* 
Acts xxi. 27 40 
Acts xxi. 27 sqq. 383 
Acts xxi. 28 125, 196, 360 
Acts xxi. 29 813 
Acts xxi. 31 ‘69 
Acts xxi. 33 9, 218, 254 (bis), 275 
Acts xxi. 34 275 
Acts xxi. 36 130 
Acts xxi. 37 248 
Acts xxi. 38 125 
Acts xxi. 39 273 
Acts xxii. 1 167* 
Acts xxii. 3 75 
Acts xxii. 5 71*, 282, 378* 
Acts xxii. 6 35, 278 
Acts xxii. 7 40, 110, 301 
Acts xxii. 9 887 
Acts xxii. 10 286 
Acts xxii. 11 825 
Acts xxii. 15 287 
Acts xxil. 16 388 
Acts xxii. 17 305, 315 
Acts xxii. 19 174 
Acts xxii. 20 69, 313 
Acts xxii. 22 217 
Acts xxii. 24 276 (bis) 


Acts xxii. 25 
Acts xxii. 26 


N. T. INDEX. 


| Acts xxii. 29 
Acts xxii. 30 


Acts xxiii. 1 

Acts xxiii. 3 

Acts xxiii. 5 

Acts xxiii. 6 

Acts xxiii. 8 

Acts xxiii. 9 

Acts xxiii. 10 
Acts xxiii. 11 
Acts xxiii. 12 
Acts xxiii. 13 
Acts xxiii. 14 
Acts xxiii. 15 
Acts xxiii. 20 
Acts xxiii. 21 
Acts xxiii. 22 
Acts xxiii. 23 
Acts xxiii. 26 
Acts xxiii. 27 
Acts xxiii. 29 
Acts xxiii. 30 
Acts xxiii. 34 


Acts xxiv. 8 
Acts xxiv. 5 
Acts xxiv. 5 sq. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 
Acts xxiv. 10 
Acts xxiv. 11 
Acts xxiv. 12 
Acts xxiv. 13 
Acts xxiv. 14 
Acts xxiv. 15 
Acts xxiv. 16 
Acts xxiv. 17 
Acts xxiv. 17 sq. 
Acts xxiv. 18 
Acts xxiv. 19 
Acts xxiv. 20 
Acts xxiv. 21 
Acts xxiv. 22 
‘Acts xxiv. 23 
Acts xxiv. 25 
Acts xxiv. 26 
‘Acts xxiv. 27 


om 


Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 
‘Acts xxv. 
Acts xxv. 10 
Acts xxv. 11 
Acts xxv. 13 
Acts xxv. 14 
Acts xxv. 15 
Acts xxv. 16 
Acts xxv. 18 
Acts xxv. 20 


CO rs Κα. wo 





313, 364 
97, 329 


10 

49 

146 

102, 159, 165, 363 
350, 367 (bis)* 
108, 127, 248, 396* 
242 

9, 334 

230 

128, 168 

118, 184, 230 

266, 269, 307, 331 
270, 307 

128, 157*, 168, 230 
370, 385 


177 
198, 259, 318*, 336 
392* 


13, 27, 69 
293*, 297 

~ 888 

283 

165 

70, 301 

168, 281, 296 
180 

, 368 
174, 176, 283 
110, 176, 259 


238 

274, 275, 384 
128, 168 

73, 815, 363 
152, 342 

13 

152 

165, 262, 346, 347 
296 

812 

99, 333 

188, 230, 932 
286*, 287, 336* 
254 


Acts xxv. 21 
Acts xxv. 22 
Acts xxv. 23 
Acts xxv. 26 
Acts xxv. 27 


Acts xxvi. 2 
Acts xxvi. 3 
Acts xxvi. 4 
Acts xxvi. 6 
Acts xxvi. 7 
Acts xxvi. 8 
Acts xxvi. 9 
Acts xxvi. 10 
Acts xxvi. 12 
Acts xxvi. 13 
Acts xxvi. 14 
Acts xxvi. 15 
Acts xxvi. 16 
Acts xxvi. 17 
Acts xxvi. 18 
Acts xxvi. 19 
Acts xxvi. 20 
Acts xxvi. 21 
Acts xxvi. 22 
Acts xxvi. 23 
Acts xxvi. 24 
Acts xxvi. 25 
Acts xxvi. 26 
Acts xxvi. 29 
Acts xxvi. 30 
Acts xxvi. 32 


Acts xxvii. 1 

Acts xxvii. 3 

Acts xxvii. 9 

Acts xxvii. 10 
Acts xxvii. 12 
Acts xxvii. 13 
Acts xxvii. 14 
Acts xxvii. 15 
Acts xxvii. 17 
Acts xxvii. 20 
Acts xxvii. 21 
Acts xxvii. 22 
Acts xxvii. 23 
Acts xxvii. 25 
Acts xxvii. 27 
Acts xxvii. 28 
Acts xxvii. 29 
Acts xxvii. 30 
Acts xxvii. 33 


Acts xxvii. 34 . 


Acts xxvii. 35 
Acts xxvii. 36 
Acts xxvii. 37 
Acts xxvii. 39 
Acts xxvii. 40 
Acts xxvii. 41 
Acts xxvii. 42 
Acts xxvii. 44 


Acts xxviii. 2 


N. Τὶ, INDEX. 


112*, 230, 274, 275, 276 ᾽ 


59, 177 

258, 301, 317* 
51, 342, 370 
165 

177, 259 

246 

111, 370 

68, 361 

283 

110, 171, 335 


Acts xxviii. 
_ Acts xxviii. 
᾿ς Acts xxviii. 
| Acts xxviii. 
. Aets xxviii. 
| Acts xxviii. 
| Acts xxviii. 
| Acts xxviii. 
Acts xxviii. 
Acts xxviii. 
Acts xxviii. 
Acts xxviii. 
Acts xxviii. 
| Acts xxviii. 
| Acts xxviii. 

Acts xxviii. 


136, 302*, 814. 


57 


287 (bis)*, 361 


282 


63, 271 | 

25, 283 

306, 331* | 
10 

98, 287, 301, 305, 351 | 


152 | 


218, 363 


᾿ 98}, 126 | 


217, 226 


139, 270 

305 

13 

246, 259, 383* 


15, 18, 256 | 


242, 306 


123, 268, 351, 368 


140, 217, 365* 
177, 258, 365 
163 


29, 304 | 


161*, 840. 


34 
161*, 167 


50, 120 


233 
277, 336 


40* 


Rom. iii. 12 
Rom. iii. 13 


8 
10 
12 
13 864. 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
20 
22 
23 
26 
27 
28 
30 


277, 315, 351* 
33 


50*, 190 

366 

150*, 297, 342 
57, 130 

62 

53 

118 


76 

13] 
158, 169 
115, 365 
256, 336 
265 
110, 117 
9 

99, 265* 
34 

278 

268 

137 

161 

7, 361* 
350 

164 

402 

89 

87 


140, 141 
105, 132, 140 
384* 

9 

64 

188 

93, 106, 223 
282 


42 

386 

274, 350 

42 

106*, 122, 151 
392* 


190, 365 
214, 234, 248 
248 


218, 238, 248, 359 


245, 574, 369 
341, 389% 

121 

48, 295% 


121, 295 (bis), 312, 351 
43 


. Vii. 2 


N. T. INDEX. 


280 | 
188 
116, 294 
116 
265 
891 
122. 


340 
134, 173 | 
58, 88 

53*, 174 

48, 105, 137 
136, 214 

138, 394 

342 

78*, 264 

184, 350 

138, 392 

137, 199, 392 
349 

265, 392* 
286, 287* 
131*, 174, 264 
29%, 355*, 369 
186 

134 

174 


393 
329 
389 
218 


208, 218 
178 
92 
92, 162 
169, 364 
116, 271 
829 
149, 178 (bis) 
113, 178 (bis) 
116, 265 
113, 307 
341 
54, 208 (bis) 
113, 399 
290 | 
9, 98 
50, 179* 
105, 282*, 365* 
179 





322% | 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


37, 269, 371 
178, 265 
50, 193, 265 
322*, 349* 
124, 296 

33 

59 

91, 109, 399 
366 

300, 304 
306, 348 

- 962 
306, 349 
888 

878 

110 

162 

187, 371 


94, 100 
154*, 165, 331, 381 
294, 391 

363 

163, 346, 347 


109 


193* 


403 
34, 91, 217*, 322% 
306, 372*, 399 

11 


120, 125, 151, 806 
327, 380, 393* 
121, 133, 162, 314, 316 


109, 194, 214 
57 

218 

294, 371, 388 
260*, 387 
396* 

350, 353 

57, 278 

335 

84, 177 


MMH 


aE; 


HH HMMM δ 


. Xil. 
ΧΗ; 
. Xi. 
. Li. 
. Xii. 
; RM. 
. ΧΙ. 
i, 
a. 
. Xii 
es B 


. ΧΙ. 
ΡΣ 


ἘΣ 
Ἐν ΟΡ 
ἘΣ εἰν 
a. 


ΧΙ, 


"": 


. Xili 

τ; 
. Xill. 
. ΧΙ. 
. ΧΙ]. 
. Xili. 


N. T. INDEX. 


93 (bis) 
174, 329 


366, 403 

117 

123 

261 

261 

131 

176, 182 

173, 176 

174 

278 

£3, 105, 174, 208 (bis) 
248, 371 

37, 248, 337, 353 
187, 290 


69, 248 
69, 331* 

21, 115 

359, 392* 

267* 

150 

271 

116, 138, 248, 264 
366 (b7s), 370 

256 

128 

. 187, 892 

42, 185, 395 

218 

186* 

162, 346, 353, 354 
359, 384* 

86, 231 

157 

23, 58, 140, 154, 155* 
137 


153* 

264 

265, 339, 389 
30 

293 

386, 392 
137 

160 

369 
272*, 386 
352, 386 


341*, 391, 403 
226% 

136 

109 

395 

199, 262, 293 





‘Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom 

Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 
Rom. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


xiii. 9 
xiii. 
xiii. 


xiv. 2 
xiv. 4 
xiv. 
xiv. 5 
xiv. 7 
xiv. 8 
xiv. 9 
xiv. 
xiv. 
xiv. 
xiv. 
xiv. 
xiv. 
xiv. 
Xiv. 
xiv. 


xv. 1 
xv. 3 
Χχν. 8 
xv. 8 
xv. 9 
XV. 
XV. 
XV. 
XV. 
XV. 
XV. 
XV. 
Vv. 
xv. 


Xv. 23 sqq. 


XV. 
XV. 


xvi. 2 
xvi. 4 
Xvi. 6 
xvi. 7 
XVi. 
XVi. 
Xvi. 
Xvi. 
XVi. 
XVi. 
Xvi. 
XVi. 25 sq. 


Xvi. 25 sqq. 


Xvi. 27 


i. 7 

i. 11 
i. 12 
i. 13 
i. 17 
i. 19 
i. 20 
i. 21 
i. 25 


455 


53, 96 
131, 260, 293 
308 


102, 273 

47, 141, 294, 388 
178 

102 

178 

163, 178, 221*, 223 
58 

388 

176 

263, 274, 349 
306 

45 

96, 185 

365 

15, 349, 366, 393* 
199, 393 


113, 350 
386 

46 

264 

176 

42 

37, 175 
264 

307 

265, 275% 
287 
349, 386 
96, 270 
268 
294% 
232 

204 


109 (bis), 110, 117, 237 
83 

17, 115 
43 

95 

13, 95 
115 

117 

100 

60, 117 
186 
137, 386 
293 
283, 383 


349 

24, 95 
21, 163 
249 
261, 356 
64 

398 
134, 349 
168 


456 


1 Cor. i. 26 
1 Cor. i. 27 
1 Cor. i. 28 
1 Cor. i. 29 
1 Cor. i. 30 
1 Cor. i. 31 


1 Cor. ii. 1 
1 Cor. ii. 3 
1 Cor. ii. 4 
1 Cor. ii. 9 
1 Cor. ii. 10 
1 Cor. ii. 13 


1 Cor. iii. 1 
1 Cor. iii. 2 
1 Cor. iii. 4 
1 Cor. iii. 5 
1 Cor. iii. 6 
1 Cor. iii. 7 
1 Cor. iii. 8 

1 Cor. iii. 10 
1 Cor. iii. 11 
1 Cor. iii. 14 
1 Cor. iii. 15 
1 Cor. iii. 17 
1 Cor. iii. 19 
1 Cor. iii. 20 
1 Cor. iii. 21 


1 Cor. iv. 2 
1 Cor. iv. 3 
1 Cor. iv. 5 
1 Cor. iv. 6 
1 Cor. iv. 7 
1 Cor. iv. 8 
1 Cor. iv. 9 
1 Cor. iv. 1 
1 Cor. iv. 14 


1 Cor. iv. 15 
1 Cor. iv. 16 
1 Cor. iv. 18 
1 Cor. iv. 19 
1 Cor. iv. 20 
1 Cor. iv. 21 


1 Cor. v 
1 Cor. v 
1 Cor. v. 
1 Cor. v. 
1 Cor. v 
1 Cor. v 
1 Cor. v 


1 Cor. vi. 
1 Cor. vi. 
1 Cor. vi. 
1 Cor. vi. 
1 Cor. vi. 
1 Cor. vi. 11 
1 Cor. wi. 12 
1 Cor. vi. 18 


Nook = 


N. T. INDEX. 


137, 138 | 1 Cor. 

123 | 1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


100, 128 
121, 173, 214 
326* 

234, 386 


206 
340, 342 
73% 
135 
58 
170 


38, 399 
149, 867, 369, 401 
365 (bis)* 

363, 374, 389 

54 


367, 392 
98, 117 
255 

339 

34 

60 

128, 281 
291% 
376 
163, 244 


304 
240, 342 

88*, 244, 325 

21, 31, 181, 235, 394* 
42, 307 

215*, 398, 402 

101 

117 

119*, 192, 198, 206, 35], 
403 

364 

2973 

318 

204 

138 

208, 330, 342 


100*, 217, 352, 359, 390* 
138, 378 


336, 403 
370, 389 
72, 332 

177, 336 
113, 370 
398 

403 

138 





1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 


1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 


1 Cor. ix. 


1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. 
1 Cor. i 


1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 
1 Cor. i 


1 Cor. ix. 


1 Cor. 


208 
134 


77, 118. 163, 286, 325 
164 


287 
117 
391 
219% 


102, 119, 363 
346 


109 
383 
125 
127, 329 
255 


133, 359, 389 


263, 270, 382 


363 


55*, 177, 260 


346, 364 
66, 248, 260 
248, 260 


126, 248, 260, 268 


159 


37, 221*, 247 


117, 392 


98, 217, 234, 240 (bis), 


371, 389 


N. T. INDEX. | 457 


1 Cor. x. 1 841 1 Cor. xiii. 7 175 
1 Cor. x. 1 sq. 898 1 Cor. xiii. 8 137 
1 Cor. x. 2 19,53. 1 Cor. xiii. 10 95 
1 Cor. x. 8 91* 1 Cor. xiii. 11 398 
1 Cor. x. 4 124 1 Cor. xiii. 12 55* 
1 Cor. x. 6 264 1 Cor. xiii. 18 84 
1 Cor. x. 7 66, 261 
1 Cor. x. 9 142 1 Cor. xiv. 1 403 
1 Cor. x. 11 26 (bis)* 1 Cor. xiv. 5 221, 355 
1 Cor. x. 12 48, 243,244 1 Cor. xiv. 6 342 
1 Cor. x. 18 268 1 Cor. xiv. 7 808* 
1 Cor. x. 14 146, 169, 233 1 Cor. xiv. 10 224, 318 
1 Cor. x. 16 288 1 Cor. xiv. 12 237 
1 Cor. x. 17 160 1 Cor. xiv. 17 365 
1 Cor. x. 18 92 1 Cor. xiv. 18 800 
1 Cor. x. 21 119. 1 Cor. xiv. 19 3860* 
1 Cor. x. 22 209* 1 Cor. xiv. 24 398 
1 Cor. x. 98 403 1 Cor. xiv. 25 « 53 
1 Cor. x. 24 892 1 Cor. xiv. 27 30, 96, 392 
1 Cor. x. 25 40 1 Cor. xiv. 33 162 
1 Cor. x. 27 888 | 1 Cor. xiv. 34 40, 400* 
1 Cor. x. 29 857 1 Cor. xiv. 36 249 
1 Cor. x. 33 115* 1 Cor. xiv. 39 263 
1 Cor. xi. 1 392 1Cor.xv.2 . 85, 221, 251,355, 390 
1 Cor. xi. 3 124* 1 Cor. xv. 6 168, 319 
αἱ Cor. xi. 4 146, 297 1 Cor. xv. 10 856 
1 Cor. xi. 5 94,127,177 1 Cor. xv. 12 377 
1 Cor. xi. 6 63, 846 1 Cor. xv. 13 sqq.. 346 
1 Cor. xi. 18 113, 278 1 Cor. xv. 18 247, 371 
1 Cor. xi. 14 109, 380*, 389 1 Cor. xv. 19 84, 176 
1 Cor. xi. 16 87, 395 1 Cor. xv. 21 138 
1 Cor. xi. 18 203, 303, 365 1 Cor. xv. 23 95 
1 Cor. xi. 21 102 1 Cor. xv. 24 46 
1 Cor. xi. 22 58, 208, 248, 264 1 Cor. xv. 25 231 
1 Cor, xi. 23 47,324 1 Cor. xv. 27 392* 
1 Cor. xi. 24 165 1 Cor. xv. 29 218, 347 
1 Cor. xi. 25 232 1 Cor. xv. 31 . 157, 371 
1 Cor. xi. 26 231, 232 1 Cor. xv. 32 205, 206, 347, 395* 
1 Cor. xi. 27 99 1 Cor. xv. 33: 11 
1 Cor. xi. 28 159 1 Cor. xv. 35 218 
1 Cor, xi. 31 114 1 Cor. xv. 36 131, 140, 389 
Ι Cor. xi. 33 244, 264 1 Cor. xv. 37 131, 224, 296, 318 
1 Cor. xi. 34 232 1 Cor. xv. 38 119, 363 
1 Cor. xv. 40 138* 
1 Cor. xii. 2 130*, 216, 3885 1 Cor. xv. 41 182 
I Cor. xii. 4 sq 401 1 Cor. xv. 42 330 
1 Cor. xii. 6 124* 1 Cor. xv. 42 sq. 402 
1 Cor. xii. 8 102 1 Cor. xv. 43 330 
1 Cor. xii. 13 188 1 Cor. xv. 44 330 
1 Cor. xii. 15 245, 339, 354* 1 Cor. xv. 45 15C€ 
1 Cor. xii. 16 839 1 Cor. xv. 48 363 
I Cor. xii. 17 225 1 Cor. xv. 49 37 
1 Cor. xii. 18 829 1 Cor. xv. 51 121* 
1 Cor. xii. 19 225 1 Cor. xv. 52 37, 134 
1 Cor. xii. 20 865, 396 1 Cor. xv. 56 125 
1 Cor. xii. 22 888 1 Cor. xv. 57 23 
1 Cor. xii. 28 102, 329, 8665 ; 
ι Cor. xii. 31 45,96* 1 Cor. xvi. 2 228 
1 Cor. xvi. 3 77 
ι Cor. xiii. 1 199 1 Cor. xvi. 4 269 
1 Cor. xiii. 2 28 (bis), 45,127 1 Cor. xvi. : 105*, 318* 
340 


1 Cor. xiii. 3 28, 36, 60, 2384 1 Cor. xvi. 


458 | N. T. INDEX. 


1 Cor. xvi. 9 63,137 2 Cor. iv. 16 70, 116, 378 
1 Cor. xvi. 11 81 2 Cor. iv. 18 316* 
1 Cor. xvi. 12 204, 389 
1 Cor. xvi. 13 178 2Cor,.v.1 116, 155 
1 Cor. xvi. 15 180, 376 2 Cor. ν. 4 53 
1 Cor. xvi. 17 157 2 Cor. v. 5 78*, 109, 328, 395 
1 Cor. xvi. 19 81 2 Cor. v. 6 293* 
1 Cor. xvi. 21 400 2 Cor. v. 8 340 
1 Cor. xvi. 22 49,348 2 Cor. v. 12 44, 293, 393* 
2 Cor. v. 18 391* 

2 Cor. i. 3 99, 100, 137 2 Cor. v. 15 178, 371 
2 Cor. i. 4 265,287 2 Cor. v. 19 106, 329, 358 
2 Cor. i. 6 99, 117, 286, 8915 2 Cor. v. 20 818 
2 Cor. i. 7 298 . 
2 Cor. i. 8 269,335 2 Cor vi. 2 134, 398 
2 Cor. i. 8 sqq. 131 2 Cor. vi. 3 307 
2 Cor. i. 9 114,175 2 Cor. vi. 4 45, 307 
2 Cor. 1..10 32,176 2 Cor. vi. 9 206, 307, 351, 382 
2 Cor. i. 11 148, 827 . 2 Cor. vi. 10 807 
2 Cor. i. 12 105,340 2 Cor. vi. 11 63 
2 Cor. i. 13 259, 374 2 Cor. vi. 13 190*, 396 
2 Cor. i. 15 186 2 Cor. vi. 14 160 
2 Cor. i. 17 88 2 Cor. vi. 15 6 
2 Cor. i. 19 20 2 Cor. vi. 18 150 
2 Cor. i. 22 329 : 
2 Cor. i. 24 178*, 372 2 Cor. vii. 2 398 

| 2 Cor. vii. 4 164. 
2 Cor. ii. 1 178, 263, 274 2 Cor. vii. 5 298 
2 Cor. ii. 2 862 2 Cor. vii. 7 91, 117 
2 Cor. ii. 3 110, 162, 175, 217. 2 Cor. vii. 10 162 
2 Cor. ii. 4 329, 389 2 Cor. vii. 11 109, 261, 274 
2 Cor. ii. 5 241 2 Cor. vii. 12 172, 266, 392* 
2 Cor. ii. 6 127, 841* 92. Cor. vii. 13 326 
2 Cor. ii. 7 274 2 Cor. vii. 14 34, 336* 
2 Cor. ii. 8 329 2 Cor, vii. 15 164 
2 Cor. ii. 11 168 | 
2 Cor. ii. 12 63, 173 , 2 Cor. viii. 2 22, 335 
2 Cor. ii. 12 sq. 106 | 2 Cor. viii. 4 164 
2 Cor. ii. 18 178, 264, 275 2 Cor. viii. 5 392* 
2 Cor. ii. 14 147 , 2 Cor. viii. 6 ; 265 
2 Cor. ii. 15 206 2. Cor. vii. 7 157, 241, 329 
2 Cor. ii. 17 311, 327, 351, 370 2 Cor. viii. 10 263 

| 2 Cor. viii. 11 187, 263, 268 
2 Cor. iii. 1 45, 114, 247 , 2 Cor. viii. 12 228 
2 Cor. iii. 2 124 2 Cor. viii. 13 117, 137 
2 Cor. iii. 5 114, 327,372 2 Cor. viii. 14 117, 137, 150 
2 Cor. iii. 6 61, 155, 887* 2. Cor. viii. 15 395 
2 Cor. iii. 7 387 2 Cor. viii. 16 329 
2 Cor. iii. 8 387 2. Cor. viii. 19 393 
2 Cor. iii. 10 10 | 2 Cor. viii. 19 sq. 292* 
2 Cor. iii. 12 87 | 2 Cor. viii. 21 292, 293* 
2 Cor. iii. 13 45,393 2 Cor. viii. 23 87*, 335 
2 Cor. iii. 17 124* 2 Cor. viii. 24 828 
2 Cor. iii. 18 190*, 193*, 348, 396 | 

| 2 Cor. ix. 2 23, 172 
2 Cor. iv. 2 45,57 2 Cor. ix. 5 25 
2 Cor. iv. 4 155, 264 2 Cor. ix. 6 394* 
2 Cor. iv. 6 274,395 2 Cor. ix.7 342, 394* 
2 Cor. iv. 7 162,163 2 Cor. ix. 9 134 
2 Cor. iv. 8 851 2 Cor. ix. 10 54, 298 
2 Cor. iv. 9 45,351 2 Cor. ix. 11 180*, 298 
2 Cor. iv. 12 365 2 Cor. ix. 12 180*, 298 
2 Cor. iv. 15 138 2 Cor. ix. 13 92 160, 298 © 


2 Cor. ix. 14 


2. Cor. x. 2 
2 Cor. x. 4 
S’Cor: ‘x: 7 
9 Cor. x 8 
2 Cor x. 9 


2 Cor 
2 Cor 
2 Cor 
2 Cor 
2 Cor 
2 Cor 
2 Cor 


2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 


2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 


2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 
2 Cor. 


yx... 10 
<x: ΤΏ 
te em 
i a Ne 
eet 
rx. 16 
ae 18 


xi. 1 
χὶ. 9 
ΧΙ. 8 
xi. 4 
xi. 5 
xi. 6 
xi. 7 
xi. 8 
xi. 12 
xi. 16 
xi. 20 
xi. 21 
a 90 
xi. 23 
Xi, 23 sq. 
xi. 24 
xi. 25 
ΧΙ. 26 
xi. 28 
xi. 29 
xi. 31 


xii. 2 
xii. 8 
xii. 4 
Xli. 6 
xi? 
Stic 21 
xii. 12 
xii. 13 
xii. 15 
xii. 17 
xii. 19 
xii. 20 
xii. 21 


xiii. 1 
xiii. 2 
xiii. 4 
xiii. 5 
xiii. 6 
xiii. 7 
xiii. 9 
xiii. 11 


Gal. i. 1 
Gal. i. 4 
Gal. i. 5 


337 


164, 263*, 274, 279 
179 

137, 163, 175 

286 


219% 

28, 136* 
44, 48 (bis) 
78, 261, 286 
307 

54 

261 

44 


35, 215* 
193*, 261 
242, 322* 

35, 226*, 295 
350 

137 

150, 249 

117 

105, 304 
360, 393 (bis) 
398 

358 

75 

321 

96 
29, 82, 841 
42, 146, 197 


186, 229, 398 
127, 217, 347 

33, 366 

59, 152, 335 

363 

287, 381* 

103, 117 

24, 187, 242, 354, 402 
117, 242, 286, 315 


219, 249, 377* 
259 

177, 304 

117 

123 


93, 365 
91*, 336 
137 





459 


93, 99, 295 
127, 220* 
220*, 362 

249 

148 

188, 366, 367 
91, 205 

69, 75, 335 
134 

110 

373 

394* 

130, 133* 


353% 

234, 385% 

114, 385*, 387 

122, 190 

241, 387, 394 

109, 241, 280*, 283, 389 
188, 191 

266 

9445 

7 

121, 174, 205, 359, 392 
247*, 304 

44 

132, 178 

93, 149 

247 


41, 140 
324, 342 

342, 392*, 394 
134 

120 

35 

271, 348 

188 

106* 

333 

308* 

57, 134, 281, 336 
264 

394 

182, 231 

93, 224, 225, 226 
123 

259, 388 

341 

72 

247 


229 
61 

349 

351 

55* 

242 (li's)*, 353, 377 
152 


46, 136, 226 
235 
231, 282 


N. T. INDEX. 


886 | Eph. ii. 


141 | Eph. 
_ Eph. ii 


103 
103*, 120, 283, 325 
21 

103*, 115 

25, 141, 146, 350 
392 

134, 214 


178* 


152: 


260 
40 

89, 96 

355 

394 

175 (bis) 

247 

53, 214 

337, 394* 

9€, 114 (bis), 120* 
184, 218 

239, 335* 


27, 243, 377* 
357 

114, 127 
116 

160, 190 
37 

116 

118, 300 
210*, 371 
186*, 235 
114, 392 
184 

171 


174 

99, 137 

112, 173 

155, 287 

22, 400 

236 

265, 295 

400 

281, 282 

91, 156 

336 

46 (bis), 938, 235 
94, 128, 265, 317* 
155, 295 


382 |: 


341 
115, 125, 129, 189* 


50, 101, 387 





11. 


99 

91, 115, 287 

46, 233%, 237, 378 
299*, 331, 389 
168, 287 


92, 169, 287 
27, 299 

329 

122, 134 
28, 96 
363* 

102 

155, 231 
125, 129 


166* 

111, 274 (bis)* 
56, 290* 

367 


29 
46, 121, 241, 392 


917, 350* 

51*, 121, 127, 129%, 314 
142 

69, 106* 

56, 68, 134, 141, 227 
255 

49 

117 (bis), $92 

125 

392 

241, 352 

116, 117 

198, 202* 

30, 159, 241 


100, 128 
92 


. . . . 
ae μὴν pete be pte 
7s ᾧ Φ 


. . . . - - . - . . * . 
μάν te μὰς ἁτΐδο μὲν Pete bee pete pete dete ὑφ pete pete bee 
. . .  # ° . . - . . . .. 


. 
pte ee ete . . 
"μῶν ee 


ee το 
me pete 
τω: 


o hee 
- 


ὩΣ ὩΣ ee: 
. . . . . 


N: T. INDEX: 


128, 281 


255, 263*, 306, 362 
83, 265, 268 

117 

οἱ 

ο 198 

174, 262 

299% 


81* | 

237 | 

352 | 

1609. 

131*, 263 | 

93*; 335 | 
211; 234 
879 
203 

123, 282, 819. 

337 © 

176 
_ 186 
7, 110; 232 
175 
338 
69, 198; 300 
117; 255 


398 


99, 124, 175*, 351 | 


175%, 392 

23, 93 

59* 

370 

87, 93; 301, 352 
-100*, 271 
256 

221*, 256, 372 
91, 394 

184, 272* 

9 


ΟἽ], 284 
79%, 194% 
281 

37, 2°8 


. iv. 3 
. iv. 8 
il. iv. 7 
. iv. 8 
. iv. 10 
. iv. 11 
il. iv. 14 
il. iv. 15 
. iv. 16 
il. iv. 17 
hil. i iv. 18 


Φ τ 
ἘΣ 


αν: 22 


Dw Dh πὸ KH & wo OAD τῷ 


. . . δὲ . . . . . . 5 
πον bts ee te pe te te te te κὸν καὶ pas te pte ταν το 
φῦ. 5. νυ. WOH OND ὦ @ 


. ἡ: 
Col. i ii. 
ii. 

. li. 10 
|. ἢ: 1] 
. li. 18 
. li. 14 
. ἢ. 15 
. li. 16 
. tis 17 
. ii. 18 
. ii. 19 
. li. 99 
᾿ς ii. 21 
. li. 22 
- i. 23 


@ ὦ te 


. iii. 5 
: iii. ll 
Col. iii. 12 
Col. iii. 14 
Col. iii. 16 
Col. iii. 17 
Col. iii. 18 
Col. iii. 19 
Col. iii. 22 
Gol. iii, 23 
Gol. iii. 24 
Col. iii. 25 


Gol. iv. 1 


ne eee 


“> 


 , 
e 
ὡ 
ἘΠῚ; 


461 


17, 278, 342 


398 


59, 185, 263 


174 


82, 333, 382 
894 


91,117 


82, 149, 189 


12, 54 


32, 155, 162* 


196. 
34, 134* 
198, 810 
173,261 
128, 185 
189, 382 


128, .281, 282 


149%, 398 
1106 


155, 298 
98 


93, 100, 243, 295 
1295 


158 
101, 142, 148 


92* 


406, 147, 194 


158 
128, 129* 


9, 349, 376* 
δά, 282%, 35, 


307, 3227 
146, 366 
101, 159 

866 


281 
72 

27 

_ 129 
149%, 299 


Col. iv. 
Col. iv. 


t Thess. 


1 Thess. 


t Thess. 
t Thess 
1 Thess. 
¥ Thess. 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


1 Thess. ii. 


1 Thess. 


1 Thess. ii 
1 Thess. ii 


1 Thess. 


1 Thess: ii 
1 Thess. ii 
1 Thess. ii. 
1 Thess. ii 
1 Thess. ii 


1 Thess. iii. 
1 Thess. ii 
1 Thess. ii 


__ 


1 Thess. iii 
1 Thess. iii 
1 Thess. iii. 


1 Thess. iii 


t Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. i 
1 Thess. iv. 
1 Thess. i 


1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 
1 Thess. 


N. T. INDE 


24,137,261 2 Thess. i. 1 

109 2 Thess. i. 4 

87 2 Thess. i. 5 

2 Thess. i. 6 

2 Thess. i. 9 
237 2 Thess. i. 10 
| 2 Thess. i. 12 


91 
154, 155 (bis)* 2 Thess, ii. 2 
342 | 2 Thess. ii. 3 
329, 342 ; 2 Thess. ii. 4 
106 2 Thess. ii. 6 
294, 297, 327 2 Thess. ii. 7 
| 2 Thess. ii. 12 
366, 368* 2 Thess. ii. 13 
807. 2 Thess. ii. 15 
55 | 2 Thess ii. 16 
325, 330, 342 2. Thess. ii. 17 
232 . 
227* | 2 Thess. iii. 2 
64* 2. Thess. iii. 8 
99, 265 2 Thess. iii. 4 
155, 193, 387* | 2 Thess. iii. 6 
117, 326, 363 | 2 Thess. iii. 9 
265 2 Thess. iii. 10 
302. 2 Thess. iii. 11 
116, 360* 2. Thess. iii. 12 
2 Thess. iii. 13 
263*, 264 52 Thess. iii, 14 
353*, 368 | 
99, 117 | 1 Tim. i. 3 sq. 
48 1 Tim.i. 4 
1 Tim. i. 7 
1 Tim. i. 16 
42 1 Tim.1. 20 


97, 169 | 1 Tim. ii. 2 

46 | 1 Tim. ii. 7 

120, 262*, 400 1 Tim. ii. 8 

57,262 1 Tim. ii. 9 

356 | 1 Tim. ii. 15 

259%, 265 | 
169 | 1 Tim. iii. 2 sq. 

118 | 1 Tim. iii. 4 

357 | 1 Tim. iii. 5 

1 Tim. iii. 7 
122 | 1 Tim. iii. 13 
92 | 1 Tim. iii. 15 
1 Tim. iii. 16 


259, 20 (bis) | 1 Tim. iv. 2 

212 1 Tim. iv. 3 

239* | 1 Tim. iv. 6 

162 (bis) | 1 Tim. iv. 7 
371 | 1 Tim. iv. 8 
62* | 1 Tim. iv. 10 
89,162 1 Tim. ἦν. 12 
221*, 994 1 Tim. iv. 13 
3i* 1 Tim. iv. 15 

403 1 Tim. iv. 16 

46, 243 

129,214 1 Tim. 
147,276 1 Tim. 





“3 


4 
5 


91 
114 161*, 286, 287, 335 
153*, 268 


. 59, 175, 190 
100 


265, 322*, 358*, 367 
386 

45, 332, 386 

123, 265, 388* 

123, 230, 389 

99, 174 


40 

188, 371 
-26 

214 


99 
36, 192 
175 (bis) 
43 


265, 372 

237, 245, 246, 346 
303 

237 

300 

88, 92*, 348 


117 

62, 117, 346, 347 
325 

93 

281 

175, 190, 282*, 402 


190 
99, 401* 
100, 287 
99 

93 

176 
165* 
231 


50 
144 


303 
178 


» pee tet eet eet »-ὦ 


ae μ- 


to bo w to ΣΟ Wb wo no to wo WD bd 
2 BEA ἘΞ ΡΒ 3 3 β 3 3.3 Ἐβ 3 3.33.3 
ΒΞ 


2 Tim. iv. 


Titus i. 2 
Titus i. 3 
Titus i. 6 
Titus i. 10 
Titus i. 11 
Titus i, 12 
Titus i. 13 
Titus i. 15 


Titus ii. 1 
Titus ii. 2 
Titus ii. 4 
Titus ii. 7 
Titus ii 9 


N. T. INDEX. 


118, 348 
55*, 128 


25, 301, 303*, 393 
134 
221, 336, 342, 355 
237 
126 


142 

345, 348 
24, 126, 402 
189 (7s) 
358 

336 

100 

176 

140 


322* 
297 
392 
366 


47 


41*, 99, 100 


278 
182, 271 
235, 402 

194 

119 





Titus ii. 13 
Titus iii. 
Titus iii. 
Titus iii. 
Titus iii. 


Philem. 
Philem. 
Philem. 
Philem. 
Philem. 
Philem. 
Philem. 
Philem. 
Philem. 
Philem. 
Philem. 


Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 


oo or 


— 
δα 


NK = 
m © O's] 


to 


bo 
Oo 


Bee ite γυχήνεάνσησον pee ptr κὰν 
WOWAT ROD | 


Heb. ii. 1 
Heb. ii. 4 
Heb. ii. 7 
Heb. ii. 8 
Heb. ii. 9 
Heb..ii. 10 
Heb. ii. 11 
Heb. ii. 13 
Heb. ii. 14 
Heb. ii. 15 
Heb. ii. 17 
Heb. ii. 18 


Heb. iii. 1 
Heb. iii. 3 
Heb. iii. 5 
Heb. iii. 6 
Heb. iii. 7 
Heb. iii. 10 
Heb. iii. 11 
Heb. iii. 12 
Heb. iii. 13 
Heb. iii. 15 


Heb. iii. 15 sq. 


Heb. iii. 17 
Heb. iii. 18 


Heb. iv. 
Heb. iv. 
Heb. iv. 
Heb. iv. 
Heb. iv. 
Heb. iv. 
Heb. iv. 
Heb. iv. 


00D Op ὧδ DS καὶ 


463 


97, 100 
116, 285, 331 
286 
173 | 
24, 47 
e 


8 
336 
78, 282, 284 
198 

33, 217* 
161 

εὐ 58 

241 

175 

259 

126 


94 
24* 
162 
339 
150 
134 
291 
140 
140, 149, 203 


278, 306* 
137 

175 

160 

261 

152, 265 
331 


242, 259 


60, 148, 179%, 187 (Lis) 
55, 134, 295, 308, 859 


148 
106, 224, 226 
371 


Heb. Vii: 2 
Heb, Vii. 1 ἔνῶν 
b: vii. 2 

Heb vii. 5 
Heb. vii. 6 
Heb. vii. 7 
Heb. yii. 8 
Heb. ¥ii: 9 
Heb. vii. 11 
Heb. vii. 13 
Heb. vii. 14 
Heb. Vii. 15 
. Heb. vii. 18 
Heb. vii. 23 
Heb. vii. 24 
Heb. vii. 26 


Heb. viii. } 
Heb. viii. 5 
Heb. viii. 4 
Heb. viii. 5 

eb. viii. 6 
Heb. viii. 7 
Heb. viii. 8 
Heb. viii. 9 
Heb. viii. 10 
Heb: viii, 11 
Heb. - fii. 12 
Heb. iii. 13 


Heb: ix. 1 
Heb. ix. 2 


149, 155, 260*, 268* 
94. 163 


155*, 322 
361 

210 

136 

167 

324 

138 

150, 152, 161 
259, 286 

147 

313, 359* 
147, 366 (bis) 
70, 331 

136, 161, 295 
13 (bis), 28 


292 
995} 
129 

44, 308 
ἫΝ 

ieee 122, 340 
206 

261 
837, 370 
105 

246 

70, 246 
116 

62 

94, 275 
278 


1545, 198, 381 
251, 264 
11 


184, 188, 248* 
67”, 520077 Cae 
\ 2 


106, 177, 361 

— 816* 

150, 591, 382 
214 

512 

264 


B70 
24%, 98 





Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. 
Heb. ix 
Heb. i 
Heb. 


Heb. i 
Heb. 


ix. 
1%; 
ix. 
ix. 


ie 
ix. 
ix. 
. ix. 


Ss a 
26, 40, 118, 366 
87 

186 

349, 353* 
32, 314, 315 
286 

364 

77, 136, 339 
261 

11, 330 


216, 217, 859%, 396 
264 


29, 216*, 359* 
136 

203 

185, 203, 393 
140, 270 

70, 185, 393 
198 

230 

265 

291*, 382 
212 (Gis) 


33, 189, see 


351 

265 

197, 278, 339 
84, 35, 197, 271 


136, 145 


146, 320, 324 
351 


N. T. INDEX. 
Heb. xi. 40 194 | Jame: ii. 20 25, 140 
James ii. 23 184 
Heb. xii. 2 60, 112 
Heb. xii. 3 841 | James iii. 2 846 
Heb. xii. 4 10 | James iii. 3 266, 387 
Heb. xii. 5 868 | James iii. 5 253 
Heb. xii. 7 355 | James iii. 6 294 
Heb. xii. 8 371, 899 | James iii. 8 79% 
Heb. xii. 9 365* | James iii. 9 99,177 
Heb. xii. 10 ~ 102 | James iii. 10 147 
Heb. xii. 11 163, 887 | James iii. 11 82 
Heb. xii. 15 158, 161, 293, 322*, 368 | James iii. 12 248, 867* 
Heb. xii. 16 47, 164 | James iii. 13 252* 
Heb. xii. 17 51* | James iii. 15 310, 351 
Heb. xii. 18 22, 191 | James iii. 17 365 
Heb. xii. 19 855 
Heb. xii. 24 339 | James iv. 1 400 
Heb. xii. 25 248, 346, 347, 892 | James iv. 2 146, 362 
Heb. xii. 27 96, 807 | James iv. 3 146, 193 
Heb. xii. 28 233 | James iv. 4 51 
James iv. 6 864 
Heb. xiii. 2 299 | James iv. 7 5§2*, 227 
Heb. xiii. 3 307 | James iv. 8 37 
Heb. xiii. 4 137 | James iv. 9 52 
Heb. xiii. 5 48, 137, 213, 366 | James iv. 10 52 
Heb. xiii. 13 372 | James iv. 12 294, 388 
Heb. xiii. 15 14, 176 | James iv. 13 70, 103*, 141, 146, 210 
Heb. xiii. 16 188 | James iv. 14 93, 370 
Heb. xiii. 17 296, 307 | James iv. 15 104, 210*, 263, 362 (bis)* 
Heb. xiii. 18 ‘381 { James iv. 17 ~— 148, 350 
Heb. xiii. 21 42, 112, 178, 214 
Heb. xiii. 24 378 | James v. 1 70, 140 
James v. 3 58, 151 
James i. 1 894 | James ¥. 4 43, 158, 326 
James i. 6 173 | James ν. 5 402 
James i. 8 402 | James v. 6 165, 402 
James i. 9 sq. 401* | James v. 7 82, 230 
James i. 10 sq. 202 | James v. 12 49, 147, 163*, 367 
James i. 11 52°| James v. 13 158, 226 
James i. 12 136 | James v. 14 42, 158, 163* 
James i. 13 170*, 826 | James v. 14 sqq. 133* 
James i. 14 117 | James v. 17 34, 184, 270, 401 
James i. 15 62 | James v. 18 34, 55, 401 
James i. 17 72, 810* | James v. 19 158 
James i. 18 62, 116 | James v. 20 119 
James i. 19 51*, 265 
James i. 22 τς 869 1 Pet. i. 8 99, 116, 187 
James i. 23 202, 847 | 1 Pet. i. 5 25 
James i. 24 197* | 1 Pet. i. 7 93, 206 
James i. 26 119 | 1 Pet. i. 8 © 174, 351* 
James i. 27 158, 262 | 1 Pet. i. 10- 55 
1 Pet. i. 11 842 
James ii. 2 364 | 1 Pet. i. 13 175 
James ii. 3 49 | 1 Pet. 1. 14 162 
James ii. 5 _ 286} 1 Pet. i. 18 91*, 116 
James ii. 6 202* | 1 Pet. i. 21 176 
James ii. 7 146 | 1 Pet. i. 24 202 
James ii. 9 294 
James ii. 10 999, 864 | 1 Pet. ii. 2 54 
James ii. 11 346, 847 | 1 Pet. ii. 4 326 
James ii. 14 364 | 1 Pet. ii. 5 68 
James ii. 15 127*, 129, 811* | 1 Pet. ii. 6 135, 144*, 174° 
James ii. 18 218 | 1 Pet. ii. 7 288, 331 





N. T. INDEX. 


2 Pet. i 
2 Pet. i 
2 Pet. ii 
2 Pet. ii 
2 Pet. ii. 
2 Pet. ii 
2 Pet. ii 
2 Pet. ii 
2 Pet. ii 
2 Pet. ii 
2 Pet. ii 
2 Pet. ii 
2 Pet. ii. 
2 Pet. ii. 
2 Pet. 
2 Pet. ii. 


2 Pet. iii. 1 
2 Pet. iii. 2 
2 Pet. iii. 3 
2 Pet. iii. 4 
2 Pet. iii. 5 
2 Pet. iii. 
2 Pet. iii. 
2 Pet. iii. 
2 Pet. iii. 
2 Pet. iii. 
2 Pet. iii. 
| 2 Pet. iii. 


| 1 John i. 1 


_ 1 John i. 1 sq. 


~} John i. 2 
1 John i. 3 
1 John i. 5 
1 John i. 6 
1 John i. 7 
| 1 John ii. 1 
1 John ii. 4 
1 John ii. 5 
1 John ii. 8 
1 John ii. 12 
1 John ii. 
1 John ii. 
_1 John ii. 
1 John ii. 
1 John ii. 
1 John ii. 
~ 1 John ii. 
l John ii. 
1 John ii. 


18 
19 
21 
22 
23 
25 
27 
28 


1 John iii. 1 
1 John iii. 3 
1 John iii. 4 
1 John iii. 
1 John iii. 
1 John iii. 
1 John iii. 
1 John iii. 
1 John iii. 
1 John iii, 24 


466 

1 Pet. ii. 9 116 
1 Pet. ii. 10 350, 353 
1 Pet. ii. 11 292, 299 
1 Pet. ii. 12 94, 808 
1 Pet. ii. 18 807 
1 Pet. ii. 14 807 
1 Pet ii. 15 181 - 
1 Pet. ii. 18 293 
1 Pet. ii. 19 128* 
1 Pet. ii. 20 128* 
1 Pet. ii. 21 62 
1 Pet. ii. 23 54, 145* 
1 Pet. ii. 24 178, 280 (dis) 
1 Pet. ii. 25 99 
1 Pet. iii. 1 36, 117, 234, 293 
1 Pet. iii. 3 50, 162, 352* 
1 Pet iii. 4 26, 180 
1 Pet. iii. 5 117, 175,176 
1 Pet. iii. 6, 148 
1 Pet. iii. 7 293 
1 Pet. iit. 10 158, 270 
1 Pet. iii. 12 119 
1 Pet. iii. 13 224 
1 Pet. iii. 14 106*, 224 
1 Pet. iii. 17 224 
1 Pet. iii. 20 328 
1 Pet. iii. 21 80, 155, 387* 
1 Pet. iv. 2 54 | 
1 Pet. iv. 3 260, 305 
1 Pet. iv. 4 185 
1 Pet. iv. 8 94 
1 Pet. iv. 11 88, 137*, 286, 308 
1 Pet iv. 12 185, 318 
1 Pet. iv. 14 177, 338 
1 Pet. iv. 17 268 
1 Pet. iv. 18 364 
1 Pet. v. 1 132 
1 Pet. v. 2 41, 352 
1 Pet v.3 352 
1 Pet. v. 4 87 
1 Pet. v. 7 32 
1 Pet. v. 8 89 
1 Pet. v. 9 116, 301 
1 Pet. v. 10 37, 116, 306 
1 Pet. v. 12 198, 332 
2 Pet. 1.1 9 97, 100, 177 
2 Pet. i. 3 119, 318 
2 Pet. i. 4 158 
2 Pet. i. 5 109 | 
2 Pet. i. 8 366 
2 Pet.i 9 116, 349 
2 Pet. i.10 99, 116, 214 (bis), 235, 241 
2 Fet.i. 1° 99, 357 
2 Pet. i. 15 53 
2 Pet. i. 16 293 
2 Pet. i. 17 124, 185, 293* 
2 Pet. i. 18 293* 
2 Pet. i. 19 230, 300 
2 Pet. i. 20 119, 121, 163* 


12 54. 


298, 297 
147, 283 


184, 300 

146*, 287 

37, 331 

65*, 162, 170 
119 

163* 

99 (bis), 158, 199 
217, 805, 349 
117, 292 


| 292* 
99, 155*, 261, 387, 388 
118, 299 

82 

293, 376* 

60 (Lis)*, 206 

206 

60* 

179, 187%, 190, 304 
116 


118 
117 


398 
398 

90, 196, 340 
160 

166 

160, 399 
160 


198 

43, 89, 362 
224, 241 
122 

124, 355 
176 

26, 78, 90 
380*, 399 
192 


199 
176 
124, 125 
125 
394 
246 
122 
173 
174 
286, 382 


1 John iv. 1 


1 John iv. 
1 John iv. 
1 John iv. 
1 John iv. 


2 
5 
6 
9 


1 John iv. 13 


1 John iv. 
1 John iv. 
1 John iv. 


1 John v. 
1 John v. 
1 John v. 
1 John νυ. 


15 
16 
17 


1 
3 
4 
6 


1 John v. 7 


1 John v. 
1 John v. 
1 John v. 
1 John v. 
1 John v. 
1 John v. 
1 John v. 
1 John v. 


2 John 1 


8 

9 

10 
13 
15 
16 
20 
21 


2 John 2 - 


2 John 4 
2 John 7 
2 John 8 
2 John 9 


2 John 10 | 


2 John 11 
2 John 12 


8 John 8 
3 John 4 
8 John 6 
3 John 7 
3 John 9 
3 John 10 
3 John 12 


Jude 1 
Jude 3 
Jude 4 
Jude 6 
Jude 7 
Jude 8 
Jude 9 
Jude 10 
Jude 11 
Jude 12 
Tude 14 
Jude 15 
Jude 16 
Jude 20 
Jude 23 
Jude 24 
Jude 25 


Rey. i. 1 
Rev. i. 4 
Rev. i. 5 


23, 122 

124, 370 

124 

150, 333 

395 

174 (bis) 

174, 295 

193, 223 

133%, 179*, 187 
90*, 104%, 199 
106, 192 


282 

382 

159 

104, 176, 296, 301 
194, 242% 

98, 99, 100 

348, 394 

394 

33 


336 
28, 240, 303 
300 
324 
106 
368 
188 


94 
116 
13, 56*, 93, 97, 100, 295 





154*, 285 


26, 103, 119 
55, 274, 304, 382 
45% 

144 
179, 393 (bis), 400 
44, 380 

103, 119 

274, 382 

159, 403 

403 

103 

386* 

149, 295 

179*, 393 

44, 45, 159, 380 
19, 119, 382 
49, 78, 144 

240 

58, 124, 184 
281* 

380 


310* 

36, 259, 301, 311, 403 
46 

282 

173, 176, 191 

403 

24 

173, 280 


45*, 211, 234, 274, 377, 382 


155*, 327 
78, 380, 386 
50, 215, 367 

259, 357 
124, 152 

150 
338, 362 
380, 386 


54, 63, 130* 
139 

26 
191, 338 (bis) 
125, 28) 


30, 50*, 70 (bis), 130, 332 


222 


70, 338 
866, 367% 
304, 350, 367! 


MAM ARR? 
- στὸ 
Ὡροϑῦθ τῷ 


ἊΝ ae. 3. ert. 


Φὺ im Cot μὸ 


N. Tf. INDEX. 


81, 101, 130, 298%, 402 
88, 302 


78, 290 

139, 24) 

301 

143, 234, 240, 381 

139, 290, 301 

164, 368, 394% 

290 

172, 184, 341* 

182 

57, 61, 65, 77, 230, 234 


78, 130, 386 
16, 21 

78, 130, 159, 280, 386 
98 


338 
122%, 366 
155, 382, 543% 


223, 
43 
36, 90 
197 
112 
60 
78, 130 
150 
41 
85, 301 


382 
§7, 122*, 352, 366 
211 

211, 212, 214 

40 

177, 260, 268 
80, 45, 112, 151 
126* 

90, 130* 

78 

382 

130, 326, 327 

᾿ 367* 


143 
882 
68 
199, 362 





Rev. xi. 16 
Rey. xi. 17 
Rey. xi. 18 
Rev. xi. 19 


Rey. xii. 4 
Rev. xii. 5 
Rev. xii. 6 
Rev. xii. 7 
Rey. xii. 8 
Rev. xii. 9 
Rey. xii, 10 
Rev. xif. 11 
Rey. xii. 12 
Rey. xii. 13 
Rey. xii. 14 


Rey. xiii. 8 
Rey. xiii. 6 
Rey. xiii. 
Rev. xiii. 11 
Rey. xiii. 
Rey. xiii. 
Rev. xiii. 
Rey. xiii. 


Rev. xiii. 


Rey. 
Rev. 


xiv. 
xiv. 


62, 63 
39, 62, 110, 278 
337 


884» 


141, 164, 331, 398 
7, 18, 115 


61, 99, 182 
“4177 

280 

18, 282 
227, 238 


228*, 324 
65, 338 


: 60, 66 
78, 386 
64, 158, 166, 172, 239, 301 
78, 139 


137, 172, 211, 219 
‘Ser 
938] 


Rev. xvi. 1 
Rev. xvi. 5 
Rev. xvi. 6 
Rev. xvi. 9 
Rev. xvi. 12 
Rev. xvi. 19 


Rev. xvii. 1 
Rev. xvii. 2 
Rev. xvii. 8 
Rey. xvii. 4 
Rev. xvii. 6 
Rev. xvii. 8 
Rey. xvii. 9 
Rey. xvii. 10 


Rey. xvii, 13 
per: xvii, 16 
ey. X¥il. 17 
Rey. xviii. 2 
Rev. xviii. 3 
Rev. xviii. 4 
Rey. xviii. 6 
Rev. xviii. 7 
Rev. xviii. 8 
Rev. xviii. 9 
Rey. xviii. 10 
Rev. xviii. 12 
Rey. xviii. 14 
Rev. xviii. 15 
Rev. xviii. 16 
Rev. xviii. 19 
Rev. xviii. 20 
Rev. xviii. 21 
Rev. xviii. 22 
Rey. XYiii. 23 


Rev. xix. 1 
Rev. xix. 2 
Rev. xix. 5 
Rev. xix. 7 


N. T. INDEX. 


151, 155 


90, 314 
62, 383 

39, 80%, 130, 164* 
| 164 


39 

59*, 78, 306*, 316, 376 
- 280 

102 


3. 
58, 60, 106. 
231 


398* 

43 

159 

* 109, 286 
112 

60 

61 

154 

82, 162 


36, 1565, 212, 214, 322* 


326 
82, 87, 154 
40, 154 


87, 121 
41, 124, 214 


130 
182 
176 
112, 209, 211 





Rev. xix. 10 
Rev. xix. 11 
Rev. xix. 12 
Rev. xix. 13 
Rey. xix. 14 
Rev. xix. 15 
Rey. xix. 17 
Rev. xix. 20 
Rev. xix. 21 


43 
129, 191, 385* 
81 


163 
14, 29, 153* 
30, 331 

126 

121 


18, 45, 120 
121 
45 


395 
211, 284 
58 


A GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS 


(GRAMMATICAL AND RHETORICAL). 





The more familiar terms, and those which (like Anacoluthon, Aposiopesis, Asyndeton, 
Brachylogy, Ellipsis, Epexegesis, Hyperbaton, Pleonasm, Polysyndeton, ete.,) find special 
elucidation in the body of the foregoing work, and a place in its Index, are not included 
in the following List. In preparing it free use has been made of the various books on Rhet- 
oric, Hermeneutics, Grammar, etc., together with the N. Τί Commentaries. 





Aetiologic, giving the cause ; aetiological particles i.e. causal conjunctions. 

Adversative: cf. Metabasis. 

Amphiboly: ambiguity arising from the possibility of two constructions; as 
in 6 δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (Rom. i. 17). 

Anacoenosis: see Communicatio. 

Anadiplosis or epanastrophe: the repetition of the end of one clause at the 
beginning of the next with an extension of the thought; as, ἔθνη... κατέλαβε 
δικαιοσύνην, δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως (Rom. ix. 30). 

Anantapodoton: a conditional (or similar) proposition which wants its apo- 
dosis (or consequent clause); as, 2 Pet. ii. 4 εἰ γὰρ etc. (Rom. v. 12 ὥσπερ δὲ 
ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου etc.). 

Anaphora or epanaphora: the repetition of one or more words at the beginning 
of successive clauses ; as, οὐκ εἰμὶ in 1 Cor. ix. 1, or τίς in vs. 7. 

Anarthrous: without the Article. 

Anastrophized: having its accent thrown back; as, ἔνε when 1.4. ἔνεστι, 
ef. p. 72. 

Annominatio: a paronomasia (which see) in which regard is had not merely | 
to a resemblance in-sound, but in sense as well; as, Rom. i. 28 οὐκ ἐδοκί- 
μασαν Tov θεὸν. .. παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς 6 θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, Win. 638 
(592). 

Antanaclasis: the repetition of one and the same word in an opposite (or 
different) sense; as, νεκρούς in Matt. viii. 22. 

Antiphrasis: the use of a word (generally one having a good sense) instead 
of its opposite; as, οἰκοδομηθήσεται (edified) in 1 Cor. viii. 10. 

Antiptosis: the putting of one Case for another; cf. Win. 636 (590). 

Ascensive : ‘augmentative or climactic, as καί in κἀγώ Rom. iii. 7 even I (form- 
ing an ‘ ascent’ to the ἐγώ by a tacit comparison, as it were). 

Attributive: a word etc. used adjectively. , 


Catachresis ; the abuse of a word, or its hold use in an extraordinary applica- 
tion; as, διὰ νόμου πίστεως Rom. iii. 27. 


470 


A GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS. 471 


Categoric Plural: the use of the Plural denoting a class when but one in< 
dividual is referred to, — (in order to give vagueness or a certain fulness to 
the expression) ; as, Matt. ii. 20 τεθνήκασι of ζητοῦντες (referring to Herod). 

Chiasmus or chiasma: a rhetorical arrangement of words or clauses so that 
they correspond to one another crosswise, like the letter X; as, Matt. xii. 22 
ὥστε τὸν τύφλον Kk. κωφὸν 


K. λαλεῖν κ. βλέπειν 

Communicatio, or anacoenosis, occurs when a writer associates his readers 
with himself, either adopting their opinions or assuming that they share his ; 
cf. e.g. in Rom. iii. 9 the we of προεχόμεθα; with that of προῃτιασάμεθα. 

Comparatio compendiaria : an abbreviated comparison; as, Matt. v. 20, cf 
p- 168. 

Constructio ad synesin (or sensum): a regard, in construction, for sense 
to the neglect of the grammatical form. See the Index. 

Constructio praegnans occurs when one clause virtually contains within 
itself another; as, Mark ii. 1 eis οἶκόν ἐστι i.e. he has gone into and now 18 in 
the house, cf. p. 395. Cf. Pregnant. 

Co-ordinate (cf. subordinate): descriptive of a proposition or clause which, 
while sustaining a logical relation to another, is so connected with it as to be 
its equal in grammatical rank. 

Correlation, law of (or of sympathy): that usage respecting the Article ac- 
cording to which, if one substantive has another depending upon it in the 
Gen., they either both take the Art. or are both without it. 

Corresponsive xai the, introduces a consequence answering to what precedes ; 
as, διὸ καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὃ θεὸς Rom. i. 24. 


Dawes’s Canon: see Index. 

Descensive: indicating progress down wards; as, καί in εἴγε καὶ εἰκῆ Gal. iii. 4: 
of indeed it be even (i.e. only) in vain. 

Dilogy : sometimes, a (designedly) ambiguous expression ; sometimes, a repeti- 
tion for the sake of emphasis. 

Diplasiasmus: a doubling — whether of words, syllables, or consonants; as, 
Matt. xxiii. 37 Ἱερουσαλήμ, Ἱερουσαλήμ. 

Dynamic: an epithet applied to the Dative Case viewed as denoting efficiency ; 
more commonly known as the instrumental Dative, (corresponding to the 
Latin Ablative). It is also used as descriptive of the Middle Voice, when 
that voice expresses not merely the action of the verb, but implies also a’certain 
intensity or earnestness as respects the agent. 


Ecbatic: denoting a mere event or issue as distinguished from the fulfilment of 
a purpose (cf. telic) ; as eg. ἵνα in the (alleged) sense of so that, see p. 239. 

Enallage:-an exchange of one gender, number, person, voice, mood, tense, etc. 
of a word for another. Cf. Index. 


Epanadiplosis: the use of the same word both at the beginning and at the 
end of a sentence; as, χαίρετε in Phil. iv. 4. 


Epanalepsis : : the resumption of a word or a thought after intervening matter ; 
as, Y Cor. viii. 4 cf. 1; xi. 20 ef. 18. 


Epanaphora: see Anaphora. 
Epanastrophe: see Anadiplosis. 


472 A GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS. 


Hpanorthosis: the rectification of an expression by qualifying it,or by sub: 
stituting another in its stead; as, John xvi. 32 ἐμὲ μόνον ἀφῆτε" καὶ οὐκ 
εἰμὶ μόνον ete. 

Epistrophe or Epiphora: the recurreace of the same word at the end of succes: 
sive clauses; as, κἀγώ in 2 Cor. xi. 22. 

Epizeuxis: the repetition of a word, — generally to express earnestness or em- 
phasis ; as, Matt. vii. 21 κύριε, κύριε. 

Ethical i.e. indicating the state of mind. Prepositions are used ethically when 
used to denote mental relations. The Ethical Dative is a Dative (generally 
of a Pron. of the 1st or 2d Pers.) indicating interest or emotion ; it is often 
untranslatable, cf. p.179. The Ethical Future is a Future expressing not 
mere futurity, but what may or ought to take place; cf. Win. 279 (262). 

Extensive (as contrasted with intensive) use, for example of ras: viz. to denote 
frequency as distinguished from force; as, Eph. i. 8 πᾶσα σοφία all (1.6. ‘ every. 
kind of’ rather than ‘ the highest’) wisdom. Cf. Win. 111 (105sq.). 

Figura Etymologica: a verb with an Accusative of kindred signification ; 


as, John vii. 24 «plow κρίνετε. 


Gnomic or iterative Aorist, see pp. 201 sq. 

Granville Sharp’s rule (respecting the Article): ‘when καὶ connects two 
personal nouns of the same case, if the Art. precedes the first noun and is not 
repeated before the second, the latter always relates to the same person that 
is expressed or described by the first.’ It was applied by him (in ‘f Remarks 
on the Uses of the Definitive Art. in the Gr. Text of the N. T.’”? 3d ed. 1803) 
to proving the Deity of Christ from such expressions as βασιλεία τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
καὶ Θεοῦ Eph. v. 5. 


Hendiadys (ἕν διὰ δυοῖν) : one notion expressed as though it were two; ci- | 
Win. 630 (585). 

Hypallage: the transfer of an attribute of one substantive to another; ef. 
ποτήριον ... exxuvduevov Luke xxii. 20, and Win. 634 (589). 

Hypotactic : see paratactic. 

Hysteron Proteron: an inversion of the natural order of words, — what 
should come ‘last’ being put § first’; cf. Win. 553 (514). 


Idiosis: the transfer, by a writer, to himself in his private capacity of what holds 
true universally, or of an entire class; as in Rom. vii. 7 sqq. 


Intensive: cf. extensive. 
Litotes, substantially synonymous with Meiosis; which see. 


Meiosis: the employment of a disparaging or over-weak expression in order to 
enforce a thought; particularly, the expression of a thought by denying its 
contrary; as, οὐκ ἐπαινῶ 1 Cor. xi. 22, 

Metabasis, metabatic, etc., marking a transition ; as δέ when its copulative 
force is predominant, ΣΡ ΕΣ ΤῊΝ from the oppositive δέ (as it occurs, for 
example, after a negative), and from the adversative ἀλλά. Cf. Win. 441 sq. 
(411 sq.). | 

Metaplasm : a formation from a non-existent Nom. or theme: see Index. 

Metaschematismus: the transfer to an individual of what holds true of the 
whole class to which he belongs; cf. 1 Cor. iv. 6. 

Metonymy: the exchange of one term or name for another with which it has 
some relation; as, Rom. ii. 27 7 ἀκροβυστία i.g. ἔθνη vs. 14. 


A GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS. 473 


Mimesis: a lively imitation or reproduct’on of the words ete. of another; 88, 
Col. ii. 21. 


Nomen conjugatum : a noun akin in fottn or meaning to the word with 
which it is connected; as, Col. ii. 29 αὔξει ἀὔξησιν. 


Oxymoron: a pointed expression produced by uniting words of opposite sig: 
nification ; as, Rom. i. 20 τὰ ἀόρατα ... καθορᾶται. 


Paraleipsis: the mention of a thing by pretending to pass it by; as, Philem. 
19 ἕνα μὴ χέγω ete: 

Parataetic the (as distinguished from the hypotactic or syntactic) abvatyement 
of clauses, is the ranging of them one after another in simple succession, 
instead of indicating their logical relations to one another; as, Matt. xviii. 21 
ποσάκιβ ἁμαρτήσει εἰς ἐμὲ ὁ ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω ete: 

Parathetic (or loose) compounds (as distingnished from synthetic, which see) 
are those formed by the mere juxtaposition of separate words, as, ἀνα-λαμβάνω. 
On parathetic Apposition see Win. 528 (492). 

Paronomasia: a combination of words similar in sound; as, Rom: i. 29 sq. 
πορνείᾳ, πονηρίᾳ, φθόνου; φόνου ... ἀσυνέτους, ἀσυνθέτους, --- οἵ, Win. 636 sq. 
(591 sq.). 

Polyptoton: the recurrence of different cases etc. of the same word; as, 2 Cor. 
ix. 8 ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν ἔχοντες. Cf. the Latin epigram 
“Mors mortis morti mortem nisi morte tulisset, Aeternz vite janua clausa 
foret ” (quoted by Alf. on Heb, ii. 14). 

Predicate, a tertiary, is the predicate of a predicate (which latter is connected 
with its subject by some other verb than a copula or a verb signifying to 
name etc.) ; in other words, it is the anticipation of a distinct additional prop- 

‘ osition (cf. Donaldson, Gr. Gram. §§ 417, 489). It is most conveniently 
translated by ‘taking the tertiary predicate as the primary ore, and making 
the verb which contains the primary predicate dependent on a relative.’ For 
example, in John v. 36 ἐγὼ ἔχω thy μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ *Iwdvvov the Adj. 
μείζω, being without the Art., implies an additional (tertiary) predication 
respecting the (secondary) predicate μᾶρτυρίαν, which may be brought out by 
the translation “ The testimony which I have is greater than John:” 

Pregnant use of a word: when it is used to imply a second relation, the ante- 
cédent or consequent of that which it strictly expresses; as, John viii. 47 6 
ὧν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ... ἀκούει 1:6: ‘heareth [and obeyeth].’? On pregnant construc- 
tion cf. Constructio Praeenans. 

Prolepsis: anticipation. It may be either of a rhetorical nature, as when an 

- objection is anticipated and answered (e.g. Rom. vi. 15), or of a grammatical 
i.e. in the reference of a word (cf. pp. 198 sq. 356). : 

Prosopopoeia: personification, or the ascribing of personal properties to inan- 
imate objects or abstract ideas; as, Matt. vi. 3 μὴ γνώτω ἣ ἀριστερά σου ete. 

Prosphonesis or apostrophe: the rhetorical use of direct address; as, Rom. ii. L. 

Rational concord: construction according to the sense rather than the form, ~ 
see Constructio ad synesin. 

Recitative ὅτι ἃ redundant ὅτε which the Greek all¢ vs to remaifi even when 
ἃ Guotation is introduced in direct form; as, Matt vii: 23 τότε ὁμολογήσω 


> - »φ 7 " δ, ὁ 
αὐτοῖς " ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς. 


Sense-construction: see Constructio οι synesin. 


"AT4 A GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS. 


Sharp, see Granville Sharp’s Rule. 
Schema (i.e. figure or construction): σχῆμα ἀπὸ κοινοῦ occurs when a woré 
(or its influence) is common to two clauses, so that its case etc. is determined 
by the second rather than by that to which it primarily belongs; as, Acts ix. 
27 Βαρνάβας ἐπιλαβόμενος αὐτὸν ἤγαγε where αὐτόν although primarily belong- 
ing to éma. is governed by ἤγαγε. See Index p. 412 and under ‘‘ Luke.” 
σχῆμα ᾿Αττικόν : the use of a Neuter Plural with a verb in the Singular, 
as, John x. 25 τὰ ἔργα. . . μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ. 
σχῆμα Βοιώτιον or ΠΠινδαρικόν ;: the use of a Masc. or Fem. Plurai with 
a verb in the Singular ; to this Luke ix. 28 ἐγένετο... ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ has 
been incorrectly referred, cf. Win. 516 (481), 563 (523 sq-). 
σχῆμα κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν occurs when an individual of a genus (connected by 
kat) is distinguished by a separate mention; as, Acts v. 29 6 Πέτρος καὶ of 
ἀπόστολοι. 
σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος : when to a totality (often a Plural) the speci- 
fication of a particular part is afterwards subjoined; οἵ, 2 Cor. xii. 7 ἐδόθη 
μοι σκόλοψ TH σαρκί, see p. 186. 
σχῆμα Κολοφώνιον : the use of a Dative (often instead of a Gen.) in im- 
mediate dependence on a substantive; as, 2 Cor. ix. 11 εὐχαριστίαν τῷ θεῷ, cf. 
p- 180. 
σχῆμα trapovopacta, of Figura etymologica. 
σχῆμα πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον or νοούμενον, cf. Constructio ad synesin. 
Subordinate : a word or clause so related to another as to be complementary 
to it and grammatically dependent upon it. 
Synchoresis: a concession made for the purpose of pointing a retort; as, 
James ii. 19 σὺ πιστεύεις... καλῶς ποιεῖς " Kal τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσι etc. 
Synecdoche: the designation of a whole by a part, a genus by a species ete., 
or vice versa; as, Rom. xiii. 1 πᾶσα ψυχὴ ὑποτασσέσθω let every soul (i.e. 
every person). Hence the Accusative specifying the part etc. is called the 
Acc. of synecdoche. 

Synizesis: in grammar, the union of two vowels in pronunciation ; in rhetoric, 
equivalent to zeugma; which see. 

Syntactic structure: see paratactic. 

Synthetic (or close) compounds (as distinguished from parathetic, which see) 
are those in which the component elements have been moulded together into 
one inseparable whole; as, κακοῦργος. On synthetic Apposition see Win. 528 
(492). 


Tapeinosis: essentially synonymous with Meiosis, which see. 


Tautology: needless or pleonastic repetition; ef. Luke i. 35 πνεῦμα ἅγιον 
ἐπελεύσεται... δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει etc. 


Telic: denoting end or purpose; cf. Ecbatic. 
Tertiary predicate: see Predicate. 


Whole and Part Figure: see σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος. 


Zeugma::the connection of a verb, adjective, ete., with a number of words, when 
it really suits but one of them; as, Lukei. 64 ἀνεῴχθη τὸ ΔῈ αὐτοῦ καὶ 
ἢ γλῶσσα. Cf. pp. 400 5ᾳ. \ 


= a Shc) 
Pat a es tiie 
ld 


ΟΝ $4 
i Aa Poa 


4 


Re A a Bk es 


Ct ae 


» 


he 
Ls κι 
Moy te 














RETURN _ CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT | 
ΤΟ. «Ὁ 202 ΠΕ Library 


LOAN PERIOD 1 3 
~ HOME USE 
4 5 6 




















ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 

1-month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405 

6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation Desk 
Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date 


DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 





















































UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 


FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 12780 BERKELEY, si 94720 
Se 








U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIE 


A 


BOOS01L1L44e2 








ay 
‘ 


fare - 
wie 


a J.) 
ae SSeS sie 


Ως 


τὴν 


τον 
ΣῊ 
te tty 

+, 


ΡΝ i 
ses 
ΦΌΩΣ 


χα 


ΕΣ 


752 , 
ee δ 

τ 
irs 


eSSEs salt 
ae 
ate hry iis 
EE τντλὶ 
44 yy 
WAS 


: ih 
US A ak 
‘ Bays 


? AIS 
τἰγ γεν 
INS EYANS 
RS HALAS ' 


; ¢ 

{} ἢ ΠΥ 

Ξ testy + ¥ 

A S SAF 
=}. 

iY LSS: 

ἀτόννι 


A) + 
Ue Sen 
ΡΣ POP OBES Se Lt Ὁ 00] 
πον 
VANDA YAU AIAG ASAE HASSLE ATA 
“ εἶ ait es ιν ΦῸ} 
{ ᾿} Chesed) 


‘2 7 


* NY: TGs 

SPAY Netanya Ny 
iN PNR WY 
ΠΡ ἢ y ay ἢ ‘i 
RSH Ase ΤῈ ae NEON: 
7 a hy Σ 7, Ais 


ἢ 


VERE TES 9k 
HA 


i 

ΤΥ 

ἀπ 
ΝΣ 
/ 


¢ 480 
oH 0. 
2 fees 
Hes i ὶ { 7 
DCE st Π 
ΤΙ 


J 
¢ ΣΉ 
ἊΝ Ὧν 


o 


oA ny ita} τ “ 
ye ᾿ 1 ἜΝ 
ὙΠ , 
i ny. " 
$e y 


7 
an" 
᾿, 
ae 
“ad 
att 


“ 
ἘΝῚ 


ΤΣ ῇ 


2h. 


<n 


Ὡς as 
Ss x 


Ἐν 


Me 


ὡς 
Sant 


7, RE 
Sets ΤΕ 
ΠΣ iN 
ὌΡΟΣ ῃ 
ΦΕΣΑΈΎΕΕΙΣ 
ΣῊ 


Ὁ Ν 
ὌΝ Στ 


Ἄν 


ts 
: 


Wasa 


Be Be 
ravines 
» BI, 


Set 
Lawns 


ae 





i tnepie gt δ ὩΣ on Ak ct ee eee νν 





